China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Children’s worry and development
Published in Marc H. Bornstein, Psychological Insights for Understanding COVID-19 and Families, Parents, and Children, 2020
A different but related body of research focused on children’s thinking about the future is counterfactual thinking. Worries can typically be viewed as hypothetical thinking about the future, whereas counterfactual thinking is when future possibilities are in contradiction to what is currently happening or known. So, if worry is asking ‘what if?’ counterfactual thinking is asking ‘what if that hadn’t happened?’. Alice got her exam results and was disappointed. She was worried about whether it might impact on her future choices and her future career. Very soon she was thinking to herself, ‘if only I had studied harder’, ‘if only the right question had come up on that test paper’ ‘if only I had eaten a proper breakfast the morning of the exam’. There is debate about what age children start being able to think counterfactually (Beck et al., 2014) that mirrors the debate about hypothetical future thinking. There is some evidence that a certain kind of counterfactual thinking is present from about three years of age (Harris, German, & Mills, 1996; Robinson & Beck, 2000), whereas other researchers suggest that it starts a little later, from four years old (Riggs et al., 1998). It does appear, like hypothetical future thinking, to develop through childhood into adolescence, with greater complexity and capacity for abstraction (Beck et al., 2014; Rafetseder & Perner, 2012).
Medical Error as a Collaborative Learning Tool
Published in Fritz Allhoff, Sandra L. Borden, Ethics and Error in Medicine, 2019
Petrocelli says that counterfactual thinking is most likely to emerge for health-care professionals when they experience unexpected outcomes, undesirable outcomes, repeatable situations, and when they come close (but do not reach) desirable outcomes (Petrocelli 2013, 5). What these situations share is that they all lend themselves to error. This makes sense because the act of considering whether some other course of action would have been better for a given situation implicitly suggests the presence of error. In the above thought experiment, for example, Yael is worried that she incorrectly chose Treatment A, and this deliberation comes following an undesirable outcome (the loss of her patient). This is not to say that Yael is incompetent; far from it, as a surgeon Yael has become an expert in the medical field. Instead, this uncertainty plays on the fact that there is undoubtedly evidence that she does not (or possibly could not) know at the time when she had to make her decision.
Formats of testing for cognition, affect, and psychomotor skills
Published in Claudio Violato, Assessing Competence in Medicine and Other Health Professions, 2018
The final stage, formal operational stage (ages 11–13 years; adolescence and beyond), is characterized by logical use of symbols and abstract concepts. At this point, the person is capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. The adolescent or adult can employ hypothetical, counterfactual thinking (what-if), which is frequently required in science and healthcare. Other features of this stage include Abstract thought that considers possible outcomes and consequences of actionsMetacognition, the capacity for thinking about thinking, allows reflection on one’s own thought processes and monitors themProblem-solving with the ability to systematically solve a problem in a logical and methodical way
Age Differences in Open-Mindedness: From 18 to 87-Years of Age
Published in Experimental Aging Research, 2022
A second revision of the AOT called the actively open-minded thinking about evidence (AOT-e) scale was used across five studies (Pennycook, Cheyne, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2019) in the amalgamated dataset in this paper. This revised version of the AOT was created by Pennycook et al. (2019) to examine the role of open-mindedness in the evaluation of evidence. In part, this thinking about evidence can be mapped on to the third of Baron’s (2019) functions, during which the thinker must evaluate the trustworthiness of the source of the evidence. Such thinking is crucial for the dismissal of counterfactual thinking about conspiracist ideation (Pennycook et al., 2019) and paranormal thinking (Pennycook et al., 2019). High performance on the AOT-e correlates negatively with beliefs in conspiracy theories (Pennycook et al., 2019), religiosity (McPhetres & Pennycook, 2019) and paranormal thinking (Pennycook et al., 2019). The authors of the eight-item AOT-e sourced the items from existing scales that measure belief identification, openness-value, and dogmatism. From a multidimensional perspective, it is reasonable to suggest that although the AOT-e measures open-minded thinking about evidence, it also measures the factors that are assessed by the sourced items that were compiled in to create the AOT-e. As with the AOT scale, the AOT-e scale was administered in to examine the influence of age of open-minded thinking about evidence.
A Dilemma of Dogma: Specifying the Personality Root of Sexual Prejudice
Published in Journal of Homosexuality, 2021
Neural evidence has suggested that counterfactual reasoning engages the dorsolateral PFC (for a review see Van Hoeck, Watson, & Barbey, 2015), and individuals with damage to this brain area demonstrate a “complete absence of counterfactual expression” (Knight & Grabowecky, 1995, p. 1367; also see Gomez Beldarrain, Garcia-Monco, Astigarraga, Gonzalez, & Grafman, 2005). As discussed previously, the dorsolateral PFC has been uniquely associated with Openness to Values (DeYoung et al., 2005). As such, assessment of potential influences of counterfactual thinking on Openness to Values, particularly stemming from interventions intended to reduce prejudice, is ripe for future research. This work might be augmented by descriptive or interventional neural research focused in particular on the dorsolateral PFC.
The Health Belief Model in the Context of Alcohol Protective Behavioral Strategies
Published in Psychiatry, 2023
Ardhys N. De Leon, Roselyn Peterson, Robert D. Dvorak, Angelina V. Leary, Matthew P. Kramer, Emily K. Burr, Ethan M. Toth, Daniel Pinto
Participants were recruited through a university research pool and completed a survey entitled “Counterfactual Thinking” from which the participants received course credit. The survey was a screen for a larger intervention study (De Leon, Dvorak et al., 2022). All data is from the pre-intervention phase. Participants were asked to provide information on alcohol-related perceptions and behaviors. The survey assessed information including demographics, weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, use of PBS, and perceived effectiveness of PBS use in preventing adverse alcohol consequences. All procedures were approved by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB).