Accountability and close-call counterfactuals: The loser who nearly won and the winner who nearly lost

This article links recent work on assimilative and contrastive counterfactu al thinking with research on the impact of accountability on judgment and c hoice. Relative to participants who felt accountable solely for bottom-line performance outcomes, participants who were accountable for their decision -making process (a) had more pronounced differential reactions to clearly w inning versus (winning but) nearly losing and to clearly losing versus (los ing but) nearly winning; (b) were less satisfied with the quality of their decisions when they nearly lost and more satisfied with the quality of thei r decisions when they nearly won; and (c) invested less money into investme nts that nearly failed and more money into investments that nearly succeede d. This pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that process accountabili ty amplified assimilative counterfactual thinking, whereas outcome accounta bility attenuated it. The evidence underscores the power of contextual feat ures of the decision-making environment to shape key cognitive and affectiv e consequences of upward and downward counterfactual comparisons.