↓ Skip to main content

Decision-Making Dysfunctions of Counterfactuals in Depression: Who Might I have Been?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision-Making Dysfunctions of Counterfactuals in Depression: Who Might I have Been?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathon R. Howlett, Martin P. Paulus

Abstract

Cognitive neuroscience enables us now to decompose major depressive disorder into dysfunctional component processes and relate these processes to specific neural substrates. This approach can be used to illuminate the biological basis of altered psychological processes in depression, including abnormal decision-making. One important decision-related process is counterfactual thinking, or the comparison of reality to hypothetical alternatives. Evidence suggests that individuals with depression experience exaggerated emotional responses due to focusing on counterfactual decision outcomes in general and regret, i.e., the emotion associated with focus on an alternative superior outcome, in particular. Regret is linked to self-esteem in that it involves the evaluation of an individual's own decisions. Alterations of self-esteem, in turn, are a hallmark of depression. The literature on the behavioral and neural processes underlying counterfactual thinking, self-esteem, and depression is selectively reviewed. A model is proposed in which unstable self-representation in depression is more strongly perturbed when a different choice would have produced a better outcome, leading to increased feelings of regret. This approach may help unify diverse aspects of depression, can generate testable predictions, and may suggest new treatment avenues targeting distorted counterfactual cognitions, attentional biases toward superior counterfactual outcomes, or increased affective response to regretted outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 84 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 24 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,765,501
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#5,020
of 9,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,356
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#122
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.