Close-Call Counterfactuals and Belief-System Defenses: I Was Not Almost Wrong But I Was Almost Right

Drawing on samples of professional observers of world politics, this article explores the interrelations among cognitive style, theoretical outlook, and reactions to close-call counterfactuals. Study 1 demonstrated that experts (especially high scorers on a composite measure of need for closure and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of personality and social psychology 1998-09, Vol.75 (3), p.639-652
Main Author: Tetlock, Philip E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attitude Formation
Attitudes
Beliefs
Biological and medical sciences
Cognition
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive Style
Experiences (Events)
Experts
Forecasting
Forecasts
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Human
Past
Politics
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Social attribution, perception and cognition
Social psychology
World View
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Drawing on samples of professional observers of world politics, this article explores the interrelations among cognitive style, theoretical outlook, and reactions to close-call counterfactuals. Study 1 demonstrated that experts (especially high scorers on a composite measure of need for closure and simplicity) rejected close-call counterfactuals that redirected history when these counterfactuals undermined a preferred framework for understanding the past (the "I-was-not-almost-wrong" defense). Study 2 demonstrated that experts (especially high scorers on need for closure and simplicity) embraced close-call counterfactuals that redirected history when these counterfactuals protected conditional forecasts from refutation (the predicted outcome nearly occurred-so "I was almost right"). The article concludes by considering the radically different normative value spins that can be placed on willingness to entertain close-call counterfactuals.
ISSN:0022-3514
1939-1315
DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.639