{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022988505747126436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020898641588296763, 'mean_word_length': 5.699300699300699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Self-Efficacy and Counterfactual Thinking: Up a Creek with and without a Paddle

Two studies examined self-efficacy as a moderator of the consequences of upward and downward counterfactual thinking. In both studies, self-efficacy was manipulated by false feedback after performing an anagram task. In Study 1, low-self-efficacy participants felt worse than high-self-efficacy participants when generating upward counterfactuals, but there were no differences when generating downward counterfactuals if the task was repeatable. When there was no repeat, reactions to counterfactual direction did not differ by self-efficacy level. Study 2 further clarified the results of the first study by including self-efficacy and counterfactual controls. Differences in affect and preparation again occurred primarily when generating upward counterfactuals. Relationships between antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy and counterfactual thinking are discussed.