Thinking About What Might Have Happened: Counterfactual Thinking and Post‐traumatic Stress in Individuals Directly and Indirectly Exposed to the 2011 Oslo Bombing

Counterfactual thinking (CFT), that is thinking about what might have happened, is linked to post‐traumatic stress. We studied the relationship between type and frequency of CFT and post‐traumatic stress in a sample of directly (n = 50) and indirectly exposed (n = 50) ministerial employees 4 years after the 2011 Oslo bombing. The results showed that frequency of CFT was associated with levels of post‐traumatic stress, among both directly and indirectly exposed participants. In the directly exposed group, self‐reported frequencies of downward counterfactuals were associated with post‐traumatic stress. A similar trend was found for upward counterfactuals. In the indirectly exposed group, self‐reported frequencies of both upward and downward counterfactuals were associated with higher levels of post‐traumatic stress. These results point to the intriguing possibility that people may not only develop post‐traumatic stress disorder as a result of actual experiences, but also via mental simulations of traumatic events that could have happened. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

It Could Have Been Better or It Might Have Been Worse: Implications for Blame Assignment in Rape Cases

Victim and assailant blame, as well as the perceived injustice and severity of a rape event, were examined as a function of the type of counterfactual alternative to which the identically described event was compared. It was hypothesized that when perceivers imagine an alternative outcome that is even worse than the original rape event, the perceived injustice and severity of the rape will be reduced, rendering the assailant less blameworthy. That is, when an alternative outcome is generated by focusing on the assailant, the hypothetically worse outcome that he could have inflicted on the victim makes the rape appear less tragic by comparison. Conversely, when perceivers imagine an alternative outcome that is better than the original rape event, perceptions of injustice should increase. In two experiments, participants considered how an identical rape event could have been worse for the victim or worse for the assailant by imagining how either the victim or the assailant could have behaved differently. Support for the proposed judgment model was obtained and implications are drawn for trial attorneys who may present alternative outcomes in order to reframe juror interpretations.     

A Dialectic on Validity: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going

It has been suggested that the primary issue in considerations of validity today is the discrepancy between currently accepted theory and the practice of validation. The reason for this discrepancy may be that although considerable discussion has taken place in educational measurement and psychometrics regarding changes in our conceptions of validity, that has not been the case more generally in the social and behavioral sciences. A dialectic on the current status of validity theory for social and behavioral scientists is presented to help bridge this gap.     

关于反事实思维的研究

反事实思维是个体对过去事件加以心理否定并构建出一种假设可能的思维活动。该文讨论了反事实思维的分类、反事实思维产生过程的两阶段模型及其影响因素以及反事实思维对于个体生活的作用。     

Missed Opportunities: Speculation on What Japanese Psychology Could Have Been

Takasuna (Integr. Physiol. Behav. Sci. 41, 2007) mentioned the ease with which evolutionary theory was accepted by Japanese psychologists, and certainly this is admirable. He also mentioned the stubborn force which had to be used to gain an understanding of the (thoroughly Western) subjective–objective distinction. Alas, during the formative years of Japanese psychology, there was much philosophical work afoot attempting to destroy that distinction. It is speculated that only a small change of which books were translated, or with which Americans early Japanese psychologists trained under, would have made Japan into a haven for these still underdog theories.     

On What We are and How We Persist

This article defends novel approaches to what we are and how we persist. First it is claimed that we have disjunctive persistence conditions: we can persist by way of either biological continuity or psychological continuity. Then it is claimed that we are neither human beings nor persons essentially. Rather, we are essentially bio‐psycho‐continuers, a concept to be explained along the way. A variety of objections are considered and found wanting.     

On What We See

This paper investigates the idea that perception can be, at once, a mode of direct awareness of the world and an encounter, in the first instance, with mere appearances. In developing this point, I introduce a sensorimotor account of perception according to which the senses are ways of exploring the environment mediated by different patterns of sensorimotor contingency (i.e. by the distinctive ways in which what the perceiver does affects how things appear).     

On Becoming Redundant or What Computers Shouldn't Do

I argue here that the development of machines that provide for us what we could previously provide for ourselves may sometimes be a dubious blessing. For the value of many goods is not independent of the way in which they are produced and in particular of the human contribution to their production. With a large range of goods it may matter to us both that people rather than machines contribute to their production and that we ourselves make some such contribution. We have a need to be constructively engaged in the service of our own and one another's ends. We also have an interest both in the extent to which the society in which we live includes all its members in such engagement and the extent to which the goods we enjoy are the fruits of such inclusive human endeavour. A significant and shared human contribution to the meeting of our needs is itself one of our deepest needs. These thoughts are developed primarily with reference to the values found in art, conversation and work.     

Living Danger: On Not Knowing What We Know

This paper contextualizes the struggle around the American Psychological Association's ethical standards regarding psychologists' participation in abusive interrogations of detainees by examining the psychological and political meanings of living in a society in which the state assumes the right to torture. To highlight the implications of authoritarian trends in America's post-9/11 political culture, I offer an interdisciplinary psychoanalytic analysis of the extreme social situation of the Argentine Dirty War, in which torture was used by the military government not as a tactic to make detainees talk but as a strategy to silence an entire population. I explore the defense mechanism of disavowal and its use by both perpetrators and victims in ways that contributed to sustaining authoritarian rule in Argentina. I suggest that it is within the legitimate arena of psychoanalysis to consider the psychological meanings of patients' experience in the larger social order. I argue for a psychoanalytic project that does not disavow the centrality of social reality in the formation of subjectivity and for a clinical model that provides a potential space in which the subject can develop a critical psyche able to co-construct a more democratic political as well as personal life.