ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Counterfactual curiosity in real decisions: The roles of outcome valence and aging.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Role of the striatum in counterfactual information seeking.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-instrumental counterfactual curiosity (i.e., the search for information about forgone options that is not useful for improving future outcomes) has especially been observed after outcomes perceived as negative and, consequently, attributed to forms of regret management. In three online experiments (N = 620), we extended the study of counterfactual curiosity about economically incentivized decisions in younger and older adults. Participants played independent rounds of a card-drawing game by choosing one of two decks to turn over the top, covered card, which could increase, decrease, or have no effect on an initial endowment. Following that, they could examine the top card of the other deck to see if and how the outcome could have differed. Experiment 1 featured identical decks, making the choice between them random. In Experiment 2, participants made a deliberate choice between a riskier and a safer deck, each varying in the extremity of potential wins and losses. In Experiment 3, the decks were identical to those in Experiment 2, but access to counterfactual information was contingent upon participants forfeiting part of their endowment. Results showed a relevant portion of both younger and older adults displayed curiosity for non-instrumental counterfactual information, especially when it was free and likely to reveal that the forgone option would have been better than the chosen one. Older adults exhibited a higher level of curiosity than younger counterparts only when choices were deliberate and counterfactual information was free. These findings are discussed in relation to current perspectives on the regret-management function of counterfactual curiosity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.