3[5]Mattew T C,Scan M.When mutations meet motivations:Attitude biases in counterfactual thought[J].Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2004,40:65-74.
4[6]Murphy,Jennifer L,Ph D.Individual differences in counterfactual thinking:The role of personality and health[J].The Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies,2005,97.
5[8]Graeme A Haynes,Richard M Sorrentino,James M Olson,et al.The effects of temporal framing on counterfactual thinking and self-appraisal:an individual differences perspective.Social.New York:Jun 2007.Vol.25,Iss.3; pg.339,28 pgs.
2[1]Kahneman D.T. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its iternatives[J]. Psychological Review, 1986,93:136-153.
3[2]N'gbala, A., & Branscombe, N. R. Mental simulation and causal attribution. When simulationg an event does not affect fault assignment[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1995,31:139-162.
4[3]Markman K D,Gavanski I, Sheman S J, McMullen M N. The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1993,29:87-109.
5[4]Gavanski, .E., & Wells, G. L. Counterfactual processing of normal and exceptional events[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychomogy.1989,25:314-325.
6[5]Gilovich V.Legrenzi P, Rizzo A. Event controllability in counterfactual thinking[J]. Acta Psychologica ,1991,78:111-133.
7[6]Kahneman & Tversky, A. The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovei, & A., Tversky(Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases[M].1982,201-208. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8[7]Gavanski, .E., & Wells, G. L. Counterfactual processing of normal and exceptional events[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.1989,25:314-325.
9[8]Lipe.M,G. Counterfactual Reasoning as a framework for attribution theories. Psychological Bulletin,1991,109(3): 456-471.
