Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice Consciousness of the Future as a Matrix of Maybe: Pragmatic Prospection and the Simulation of Alternative Possibilities Roy F. Baumeister, Heather M. Maranges, and Hallgeir Sjåstad Online First Publication, May 17, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cns0000154

CITATION Baumeister, R. F., Maranges, H. M., & Sjåstad, H. (2018, May 17). Consciousness of the Future as a Matrix of Maybe: Pragmatic Prospection and the Simulation of Alternative Possibilities. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cns0000154 Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000 2326-5523/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cns0000154 Consciousness of the Future as a Matrix of Maybe: Pragmatic Prospection and the Simulation of Alternative Possibilities

Roy F. Baumeister Heather M. Maranges University of Queensland and Florida State Florida State University University

Hallgeir Sjåstad Norwegian School of Economics

Thinking about the future highlights the constructive nature of consciousness, as opposed to merely representing what is there—because the future is not yet available to be seen. We elaborate this point to emphasize how consciousness deals in alternative possibilities, and indeed preconscious interpretation confers meaning by recognizing these alternatives. Crucially, the goal of prospection is less to predict what is sure to happen than to prepare for action in situations defined by sets of incompatible alternative options, each of which might or might not come true. We review multiple lines of evidence indicating that people conceptualize the future as just such a matrix of maybe. Thus, people think of the future as highly changeable. Most prospective thinking involves planning, which is designed to bring about one outcome rather than alternatives. Optimism may often reflect an initial, automatic response that is soon followed by conscious appreciation of obstacles and other factors that can produce less desired, alternative outcomes. People moralize the future more than the past, presumably to promote the more desirable outcomes. Anticipated emotion helps people evaluate future possible outcomes. People specifically anticipate the matrix of maybe and sometimes seek to preserve multiplicity of options. We integrate these patterns of findings with a pragmatic theory of prospection: Thinking of the future as a multimaybe matrix is useful for guiding action.

Keywords: consciousness, future, possibility, prospection, pragmatic

Consciousness presumably originated when Its awareness of what is there is at best placed in simple brains began combining information the context of alternative possibilities. Often from their sense organs to construct a subjective consciousness is used to simulate what is not experience of the environment. In this article, there and what may never be there. we develop theory and present evidence fitting a The vehicle for this is thinking about the view that human consciousness fundamentally future (prospection; see Gilbert & Wilson, involves much more than seeing what is there. 2007). The study of how people think about the future is especially valuable for advancing theory of consciousness. Among other advantages, pro-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. spective thinking makes it obvious that the con-

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. tents of consciousness are a simulation, that is, an Roy F. Baumeister, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, and Department of Psychology, Florida State experience constructed by mental processes and University; Heather M. Maranges, Department of Psychol- not a direct copy of the external world—because ogy, Florida State University; Hallgeir Sjåstad, Department the future is not yet there to see. of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the The power of conscious thought to simulate John Templeton Foundation and intellectual inspiration by counterfactual and nonfactual realities presum- Martin Seligman. ably evolved later than the simple construction Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed of a mental model of the immediate environ- to Roy F. Baumeister, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia. E-mail: ment. Humans may be quite unusual, even [email protected] unique, in their extensive capacity to engage in

1 2 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

such simulation. As one sign, ad hoc prospec- theme of this article is that the unconscious tive thinking appears to be almost entirely processes use meaning to construct alternative unique to humans. Evidence for it among other possibilities, which are endemic to conscious primates is quite rare (see Roberts, 2002, for experience. The future in particular is con- review)—so rare, in fact, that a case study of a structed not as predicting what will inevitably or single chimpanzee storing up rocks to throw at deterministically unfold but rather as a matrix of zoo visitors warranted a recent publication in a contingencies, that is, a set of alternative possi- major biology journal (Osvath, 2009). bilities for events, outcomes, and actions. We We propose that prospection is fundamen- call this the matrix of maybe. tally about acknowledging that, viewed from Our analysis is thus an extension of prag- the present, the future consists of sets of multi- matic prospection theory (Baumeister, Vohs, & ple alternative possibilities, some of which are Oettingen, 2016; Seligman, Railton, Baumeis- incompatible with each other, so that some will ter, & Sripada, 2016), which holds that the main come true and others will not. Indeed, the very reason for thinking about the future is to prepare fact of some particular possibilities coming true for how to act in possible situations to steer will prevent others from coming true. We shall events toward desired outcomes and away from argue that for pragmatic reasons, among others, aversive ones. To do that effectively, conscious the future is experienced as a matrix of alterna- thought represents the future as a set of possi- tive possibilities. Hence this prospective con- bilities and contingencies. Thus, the ability of ceptualization of multiple alternatives is closely consciousness to see beyond what is there is a linked to agency, that is, the control of action central part of prospection. Moreover, the par- based on seeking to realize some of them rather ticular power of conscious thought emphasizes than others. this multiplicity of possibilities. The alternative view is that there is only one Psychology has emphasized studying the predetermined or fated future, which perhaps a past, and when it studies the future, it tends to wise and well-informed person could effec- emphasize prediction (see Baumeister et al., tively predict. The future does not really consist 2016). But why do people think about the fu- of assorted maybes, in this view—rather it is a ture? One obvious answer is that they are trying lockstep journey, and so in principle it could be to predict what will happen (hence the research predicted from the present with precise accu- emphasis on prediction). In contrast, pragmatic racy. The perennial popularity of this theory is prospection theory says the main thrust in think- evident in the long history of belief in fate, ing about the future is less to predict what will destiny, oracles, fortunetelling, and the like. happen than to predict points at which multiple The theory proposed in this article fundamen- different outcomes are possible and incompati- tally opposes that view and suggests that the ble (so some will come true while others will role and function of conscious thought rest on not)—and, crucially, that oneself can exert the future as containing multiple incompatible some control over which ones come true. The alternative possibilities: the matrix of maybe. important thing is predicting the choice points, A review by Evans (2008) identified aware- not the eventual outcomes. Put another way, the ness and volition as the two major themes in purpose of prospection is not so much to predict theories of consciousness. Awareness may have future reality as to predict future possibilities— evolved initially as a product of mentally inte- especially situations based on offering compet- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. grating immediate sensory input, but human ing, incompatible ones. Those choice points and This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. conscious thought can roam among past, pres- performance demands are the raison d=etre of ent, and future, so it is not tied to current input. agency. Volition is relatively useless for the past but Indeed, although it is beyond the scope of this vital for present and future. We shall suggest article, we seriously entertain the notion that that conscious thinking about the future acti- consciousness creates alternative possibilities vates agency and volition. (in the sense that it makes it possible for them to We assume that conscious experience is the become reality). It is precisely because people product of unconscious processes, though it can imagine alternatives to the present that they may enable kinds of thinking and feeling that go can implement them, sometimes by creating a beyond what the unconscious can do alone. A future situation that is importantly different CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUTURE AS A MATRIX OF MAYBE 3

from the present one. As prominent examples at smartest nonhuman primates, whereas human the collective level, people have been able to children could all figure it out. Human children imagine societies very different from those that could understand the future as multiple different existed anywhere in the past, including many maybes, but grownup apes apparently cannot innovations that the rest of nature has not tried: think that way. democracy, the welfare state, government defi- cit spending as economic stimulus strategy, Future as Matrix of Maybe transformation of female roles, war-ending trea- ties, corporate law (even the very idea of a A distinctive aspect of the future is that it corporation as something separate from the peo- exists purely as a set of possibilities, unlike the ple who work for it), sea and even air travel, and present or past. Present and past events have a long-distance communication. By way of com- definite objective reality, and so alternative pos- parison, wolves, rats, and monkeys are highly sibilities are counterfactual. In contrast, for the social animals—but these have shown no signs future there is no definite reality, and so possi- of such transformations in social structure. They bilities are all that exist. In a sense, all prospec- are apparently unable to implement these alter- tion is counterfactual—or, more precisely, non- native versions of society, and we strongly sus- factual. pect they are incapable of imagining them. Even Perhaps this is why humans are much better among humankind, full-throttle imagining of able to engage in prospective thinking than alternative social structures, along with trying to other animals: Human consciousness uses implement them, is not much evident until the meaning to invoke multiple alternatives, which last few centuries (e.g., Baumeister, 1986, are essential to thinking about the future— 1987). Humankind alone seems able to envision especially when doing so involves anything be- alternative possibilities and, on that basis, inten- yond simple expectancies. A proper understand- tionally achieve collective change. ing of the future (i.e., beyond simple Recent laboratory work provides further evi- expectancies, such as that thunder follows light- dence that it takes the power of conscious hu- ning) requires recognizing that it exists as a set man thought to project the future as a matrix of of alternative possibilities. For want of a better maybe. Redshaw and Suddendorf (2016) pro- term, we call this the matrix of maybe. vided dramatic evidence that human children Pragmatic prospection theory is built on Wil- far surpass adult nonhuman apes on this. Their liam James’s (1890/1983; see also Fiske, 1993) apparatus was a tube shaped like an inverted Y. influential assertion that thinking is for doing. Thus, a ball or grape was dropped into the top On that basis, it assumes that the purpose of and could come out either opening at the bot- thinking about the future is to guide action tom. Either the participant caught it or it was (Baumeister et al., 2016). The emphasis is less gone. One could guess by holding one’s hand on predicting what is bound to occur than pre- under either of the openings, thereby succeed- paring for future actions. The actions needing ing about half the time—or one could use both preparation are ones that occur in the context of hands to cover both openings, thereby succeed- a contingency matrix—such that one’s actions ing 100% of the time. Two-year-old human can steer the course of events toward some children failed to solve this, but 3-year-olds and possible outcomes and away from others. older children all soon achieved the perfect so- The notion of future as a set of alternative This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. lution and caught the ball on every subsequent possibilities has precedent. In phenomenologi- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. trial. In contrast, chimpanzees and orangutans cal philosophy, the concept of the ontological never solved it. In fact, a couple of them stum- horizon referred to the set of possibilities that bled by accident on the correct solution, hap- can be seen as possible given one’s present pening to use both hands and catching the situation (Heidegger, 1927; May, Angel, & El- treat—but they failed to learn even from this lenberger, 1958). Closer to home in social psy- success and on the next trial went back to one- chology, situation structure inherently repre- hand guessing. Thus, success at this task re- sents multiple possibilities. Baumeister and quired adjusting one’s behavior to the fact that Tice (1985) sought to construct a theory of two different outcomes are possible, and this situation structure from the independent vari- was apparently beyond the mental powers of the ables in social psychology experiments in its 4 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

leading journal, the Journal of Personality and Future as Changeable Social Psychology, on the assumption that so- cial psychologists generally studied how situa- A classic study by Rothbart and Snyder tional factors cause behavior. (Almost all text- (1970) illustrated the link between timing and books in social psychology assert this.) A great perceived control. Participants bet on the out- variety of experiments have incorporated mul- come of a throw of dice. Everything was the tioutcome structures as key aspects of the situ- same, including the odds and the absence of ation. These include degrees of control, choice, knowledge of the outcome, except that either and freedom; having a specific option, such as the dice had not yet been rolled or had already to escape, or to return to earlier status quo; been rolled. Yet participants bet more if the roll incentives, contingencies, and competition; an- had not yet occurred rather than having already ticipated further interaction with the same peo- taken place. The implication was that people ple; degree of responsibility and other implica- felt more able to control future than past events, tions of current actions; and power relations. even though the outcome was by chance and Thus, crucial aspects of the current situation (at people had no actual power to control the out- least as studied by social psychologists) involve come. In that study, they did roll the dice them- sets of different possible outcomes, often riding selves. Brun and Teigen (1990) showed, how- on what action the person performed. In other ever, that the greater willingness to bet on future words, a situation is partly a matrix of various than past outcomes extended to things com- possible actions and contingent outcomes. pletely and obviously beyond the individual’s Conscious thought therefore simulates these control, such as the gender of someone else’s alternative possibilities and contingencies. baby, or dice thrown by someone else, or the Imagining them evokes emotions, which are outcome of a distant soccer game. Perhaps iron- useful to evaluate and compare them, so that the ically, participants preferred bets in the nearer person knows which ones to pursue and which rather than the more remote future, even by a to avoid. Recognizing the divergence of out- couple of hours. But they preferred to bet when comes enables the person to prepare for action the outcome still lay in the future than in the at those choice points. More broadly, people can past. use conscious thought to make plans, which are Indeed, people think their own powers of will scripts for how to act on particular future occa- can influence future but not past events, and this sions so as to reach goals. gives them more confidence about the future Nonetheless, the essential point is that think- (Helzer & Gilovich, 2012). People seemed un- ing about the future is less oriented toward able to fully appreciate the role their own willful predicting what will happen than toward pre- action had in producing their past outcomes, dicting points at which multiple outcomes are whereas they overestimated the power of willful possible. Agentic action benefits from prepara- action for guiding future ones. Although this tion. For this, the focus is not on what is bound pattern is an irrational distortion of the facts, it to happen but on the matrix of maybe: Con- may reflect an approach that is generally adap- scious prospection functions to ascertain what tive: People think of the future as undecided and the alternative possible outcomes are, what is at thinking about the future activates their own stake, and what one can do about it. sense of agency as something they will use to guide the future. This approach may explain This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Brun and Teigen’s (1990) finding that people This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Applications and Evidence preferred to bet on the near rather than the distant future, because agency has to focus on This section will review several diverse lines what it will need to do sooner more than later. of research relevant to the idea that conscious One has to know how to act tomorrow, whereas prospection invokes a matrix of maybe. That is, how to act next year can be decided at a later the functional task of conscious thought is often date. Pragmatic prospection generally has to be to simulate several different options and to pre- more concerned with the near than the distant pare to steer events (by actions that include future. These findings also suggest that the fu- performance and decision) toward the desired ture (and especially the imminent future) acti- outcomes. vates impulses to exert control and volition. CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUTURE AS A MATRIX OF MAYBE 5

Research on hypothetical thinking provides withdrawals, or one selects one’s lunch menu converging evidence. Ferrante, Girotto, Straga`, for the next month and makes sure to choose a and Walsh (2013) gave participants a first task healthy, nonfattening diet. and instructed them to think either about how Sniehotta, Schwarzer, Scholz, and Schüz the past outcome could have been improved or (2005) distinguished two different types of about how future performances on the same planning. Both involve conscious representation kind of task could be improved. When discuss- of the future as a matrix of maybe. The first is ing the past outcome, participants focused on action planning, which involves selecting what uncontrollable aspects (e.g., external time con- action to perform in what situations or in re- straints and innate abilities), whereas when sponse to what stimuli. The second is coping thinking about the future they focused on as- planning, which involves envisioning what can pects under their control (e.g., better strategies go wrong and preparing to deal with these prob- or better concentration). This fits the pragmatic lems and obstacles. In one of Sniehotta et al.’s view that thinking about the future activates studies, rehabilitation patients planned to en- agentic concerns about what they can do differ- gage in exercise programs. Action planning was ently, whereas one’s own agentic role is less most helpful for getting started, whereas coping relevant when analyzing past events. planning predicted later success (i.e., maintain- ing the exercise program over a long time and Planning after the treatment phase had ended). In fact, the prevalence of planning in pro- Planning is the sine qua non of pragmatic spective thought is an important basis for the prospection (Baumeister et al., 2016). That is pragmatic prospection theory. An experience because the essential purpose of planning is to sampling study by Baumeister, Vohs, Hofmann, prepare for future action and thereby to guide Summerville, and Reiss (2017) found that events toward a desired outcome instead of the roughly 75% of thoughts about the future in- alternatives. There is no need to plan, and no volved planning. Thus, when people think point, if everything is inevitable.1 Planning also ahead, usually they are not just wondering what essentially and fundamentally invokes the fu- will happen or seeking to predict future events ture as a multimaybe matrix: There is no need to or worrying—instead, they are actively for- make plans regarding events that are inevitable mulating guidelines for future actions, and about which nothing can be done. On the choices, and performances. That data set also contrary, plans are explicitly designed to bring confirmed the pattern of emphasizing the near about desired outcomes rather than the alterna- future, which is the pragmatic sweet spot, the tive possibilities. A battle plan is necessary pre- most important time frame to think about. cisely because winning is far from inevitable. Overall, most thoughts about the future were Planning is beneficial in several ways. One in the near term, though some very long-range prominent way mentioned by Townsend and future thoughts were entertained. Liu (2012), based on work by Laibson (1997; Planning typically requires consciousness. Laibson et al., 1998), is that when making plans There is precious little evidence of unconscious one is not subject to momentary emotions and planning, and indeed constructing conceptual temptations, so one can plan rationally what is sequences of future events, based on a flow of best to do. Thus, the planner’s attitudes toward

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. causality amid alternative possibilities, may be the various options can be more rational and

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. beyond the powers of the unconscious. wiser than those of the person choosing among Even the simplest of plans seems to require the options in the heat of the moment (see also conscious intervention. These plans take the form Thaler & Shefrin, 1981). Improvement in wise of “if/when X, do Y” and have been called imple- rationality is also the logical rationale for pre- mentation intentions by Gollwitzer (1999), who commitment devices, in which the person fore- closes future choices so as to preclude yielding to future temptation (Bryan, Karlan, & Nelson, 1 To be sure, there is utility in planning around inevitable events, when one’s own responses and their consequences 2010; Elster, 2000). For example, one commits are still non-inevitable. For example, one cannot prevent the to sending a certain amount of one’s pay to a hurricane from striking one’s home, but one can prepare the particular savings account that prohibits early home to withstand it better. 6 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

explained them in terms of the conscious mind gaged in other thoughts about the future. Sjåstad turning over control of behavior to externally and Baumeister (2018) provided more system- cued unconscious processes. Masicampo and atic evidence. They used various manipulations Baumeister (2011) concluded that the uncon- of ego depletion and mental fatigue, during scious mainly needs the conscious mind to for- which people lack energy for challenging tasks mulate such plans, after which the unconscious and therefore seek to avoid expending more can remain alert for a particular cue or circum- energy (e.g., Baumeister & Vohs, 2016). In stance and then initiate the preplanned action. such states, people exhibit a pronounced disin- They showed that this explains the Zeigarnik clination to plan. (1938) effect, which is that unfinished tasks Much conscious thought is independent of evoke nagging reminders popping into the con- immediate stimuli, most notably in the form of scious mind. mind-wandering. Baird, Smallwood, and Traditional theories about the Zeigarnik ef- Schooler (2011) observed that mind wandering fect have fallen into two camps, which invoke is generally regarded as a kind of cognitive different views of how the conscious and un- failure, as it indicates the cognition is off-task conscious mental processes relate to each other and therefore presumably unhelpful. Against (and to behavior). The first camp assumes that that characterization, they showed that mind- consciousness has little or no causal power, so wandering often involves spontaneous planning that the unconscious is making sure to finish the for future events in one’s life. This could be task. The Zeigarnik effect occurs in this view highly adaptive: When current activities do not because the unconscious informs the conscious demand full conscious attention, the mind nat- mind of progress toward goals, and so it peri- urally wanders toward future situations that will odically lets the conscious mind know it is require choice or effective performance. During continuing to work toward the unrealized goal. down time, the unconscious mind automatically The other camp holds that the unconscious is prompts the conscious mind to prepare for fu- disturbed by the unfinished task and therefore ture contingency matrices. reminds and pressures the conscious mind to In sum, planning is a form of prospection that resume and finish the job. Masicampo and rests on conscious thinking and simulation of Baumeister (2011) rejected both of those theo- multiple future outcomes, as well as prescribing ries by showing that the intrusive thoughts particular responses to the choice points and stopped as soon as the person made a specific tests that are likely to present themselves. Plan- plan (implementation intention) to finish the job ning is pragmatic preparation for future action, on some particular occasion. No objective prog- including both performance demands and ress had been made toward the goals, but the choice points. Thus, planning uses conscious unconscious is apparently content to watch for thinking to address upcoming situations involv- the trigger circumstance X in order to resume ing a matrix of maybe. the goal pursuit. Thus, the unconscious seems to need the Probability, Prediction, and Optimism greater capacity of conscious thought in order to make plans. The unconscious can then automat- Much research on prospection has empha- ically execute the plans as specified by con- sized predicting what is likely to happen (e.g., scious thought. Gilbert & Wilson, 2007; Tetlock & Gardner, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. We noted that narrative stories require con- 2016; Tetlock, Mellers, Rohrbaugh, & Chen, This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. sciousness (Baumeister & Masicampo, 2010). 2014). Such work already assumes the multi- Plans have narrative structure and have even maybe matrix to some degree. Predicting the been characterized as “stories about the future” inevitable is pointless, even if the event is im- (Oettingen, 2014). A further important point is portant. It is, for example, highly desirable that that planning requires effortful conscious the sun will rise tomorrow, but no money is to thought. Preliminary evidence for this was fur- be made nor credit to be gained by predicting it nished in the experience sampling data by today. In contrast, predicting outcomes in Baumeister et al. (2017), who found that people highly uncertain cases with multiple possibili- rated their thoughts as involving conscious con- ties is something that can bring both money and trol much more when planning than when en- prestige, as in the laborious and expensive poll- CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUTURE AS A MATRIX OF MAYBE 7

ing to predict outcomes of political elections, Hippel and Trivers (2011) proposed that self- the widespread efforts to predict tomorrow’s deception is often adaptive in service of other- weather or next month’s stock exchange trends, deception: Whereas hearers may learn to dis- and the contentious efforts to predict the out- criminate who is lying, they are less effective at come of heavily wagered sports events. spotting those who earnestly believe the false- Optimism is subjective confidence that the hoods they assert. Therefore becoming subjec- more desirable outcomes are more likely than tively convinced of one’s optimism would in- the bad ones to come true. Optimism thus as- crease one’s social appeal by making detection sumes a context in which different outcomes are of falsehood more difficult. possible. In that sense, optimism exists only in Still, the prevalence of optimism suggests the context of a matrix of maybe. that the widely replicated patterns of optimistic Unrealistic optimism has long been charac- forecasts are the result of shallow processing terized as a fundamental characteristic of think- and automatic responses, guided by a default ing among mentally healthy, well-adjusted peo- norm of being positive and optimistic. Greater ple (Taylor & Brown, 1988; Weinstein, 1980). engagement of conscious thought might yield a Unrealistic optimism presumably rests on a va- different pattern. To test this, Monroe et al. riety of unconscious biases, so that what occurs (2017) moved beyond simply asking partici- in consciousness is a view of the future that is pants to make idle predictions about possible pleasingly populated with the expectation of future events and had them engage in conscious many good things. Recent work has extended contemplation of the future for several minutes. optimism into specifically believing that other After this, they were asked to make behavioral people will change their beliefs, opinions, and decisions with varying degrees of financial risk. preferences to agree with one’s own (Rogers, If contemplating the future simply promotes Moore, & Norton, 2017). optimism, then people should be willing to tol- When people contemplate the future con- erate more risk to pursue greater rewards. But sciously for a while, however, some of that the opposite result obtained. After contemplat- optimism appears to evaporate. Monroe, Ain- ing the future, people became risk-averse, play- sworth, Baumeister, and Vohs (2017) noted that ing it safe with low-reward, low-risk decisions. it is easy and cost-free to forecast a bright future This was found first with a hypothetical invest- in response to survey questions, as much re- ment paradigm and second with the trust game search has found (e.g., Shepperd, Klein, Waters, from behavioral economics. In the trust game, & Weinstein, 2013; Weinstein, 1980). There people are given a monetary stake and told that may even be norms that encourage people to any portion that they consented to send to a express upbeat, confident forecasts for the fu- partner (a stranger) would be quadrupled in ture. Among other social benefits, people prefer value, whereupon the stranger could decide how to follow (and elect) leaders who exude opti- much, if any, to return to the participant. An mism (Zullow, Oettingen, Peterson, & Selig- optimistic person would assume the other per- man, 1988). Tenney, Logg, and Moore (2015) son would share the proceeds and so they would noted that it is even fundamentally rational to choose to quadruple all the money, thereby affiliate with optimistic people. If all forecasts leaving plenty for both self and partner—but were literally and precisely accurate, then those people who had recently contemplated the fu- who forecast positive views are headed for pos- ture made the opposite, pessimistic choice. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. itive futures, whereas people who make nega- The Monroe findings do not invalidate the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. tive forecasts are headed for trouble—so it is abundant evidence of optimistic forecasts. much better to cast one’s lot with the former. They do however indicate the need for a more Unfortunately, this basic appeal of optimism, complex and nuanced theory about prospec- and its tendency to be reinforced with social tive thinking. Baumeister et al. (2016) pro- support and acceptance, seems likely to encour- posed that there are at least two stages in age people to express optimistic confidence thinking about the future. Building on the even when that is less than fully justified. To be work by Oettingen (e.g., 2014) as well as the sure, hearers wishing to cast their lot with future Monroe et al. (2017) findings, they proposed winners may become skeptical of people who the following. The purpose of thinking of the simply claim that their future is bright. von future is to guide one’s behavior so as to 8 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

produce positive outcomes from among the point is that moral judgments often involve con- matrix of possibilities. When people first scious thinking about a multimaybe matrix. think about the future, they imagine what they Moral judgments are basically about whether want to happen (i.e., the positive outcomes). one should act differently in that situation. The This pattern constitutes the optimistic side judgment that the person should have acted of prospection. It is based on rapid, automatic differently presupposes that the person could processes. The second stage, however, is the have acted differently. Moral principles are not pragmatic elaboration of how to get to the generally applied to events or circumstances for positive outcome. It necessarily focuses on which there are no alternative possibilities. obstacles, pitfalls, problems, and the like, and When acting differently is regarded as impossi- so may engender pessimism. An effective ble, moral condemnation is muted (e.g., Shariff plan will take note of actual contingencies et al., 2014). and anticipate all that could go wrong. Both Thus, morality projects the future as a con- steps invoke multiple possibilities, but the tingency matrix, and it identifies several dimen- first focuses on the best obtainable outcome, sions of evaluation of the options and then fur- and the second focuses on the undesired al- nishes the judgments and reasons for preferring ternatives. particular options. These are often not the ones Recent evidence has supported the two-stage that other deeply rooted impulses would dictate. model. Sjåstad and Baumeister (2017a) asked The power of morality for dealing with the participants to make personally relevant predic- matrix of maybe is evident in some provocative tions, by random assignment either very rapidly findings by Phillips and Cushman (2017). They or only after a pause. The rapid predictions were showed that people tended to regard immoral significantly more optimistic than the delayed events as impossible when contemplating ones. This fits the pattern of automatic optimism them—though this was largely an automatic followed by cautious reflection on what can go reaction, and when responding in a slower, wrong. more deliberative manner, the impossibility The difference between action and coping subsided. The implication is however that peo- planning may be relevant. As described above, ple use moral judgments to shut certain options Sniehotta et al. (2005) found that action plan- out from consideration. As further evidence, ning was more helpful for getting started, Cooney, Gilbert, and Wilson (2016) showed whereas coping planning was more effective for that people express stronger concerns about maintaining success over a longer time frame. fairness before rather than after resources are Again, the optimistic focus on the benefits may distributed. Beforehand, the procedure for dis- be helpful for motivating the start, but sustain- tributing is still changeable, and so morality can ing over the long run will require dealing with be used to alter the upcoming outcome. obstacles. Recent theorizing about morality has increas- Thus, optimism involves forecasting a posi- ingly emphasized the future. We assume that tive, desired future, and that may be an impor- morality is basically pragmatic and functional: tant and adaptive first step in deciding how to Societies adopt moral rules because these im- act. But after envisioning what one would like prove group functioning and survival. The con- to happen, one has to contemplate problems and tent of moral rules derives from principles of obstacles in order to prepare to deal with them. system effectiveness and efficiency, which is This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. The goal of thinking about the future is to why many moral rules are similar all over the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. prepare oneself for actions and choices that will world, in all cultures. Prohibitions against mur- bring about desired outcomes. This requires a der and theft, exhortations to take turns and tell balance between knowing what one wants and the truth, support for helping and cooperation, knowing what might prevent that from happen- obligation to reciprocate favors, and other wide- ing. spread values reflect what is probably necessary for a human society to survive and thrive. Morality Hence efforts to promote morality are tied to the desire for a harmonious future. Morality is an important category of human A first issue regarding morality concerns whom social cognition. For present purposes, the key to trust. Whereas most research on moral judg- CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUTURE AS A MATRIX OF MAYBE 9

ment has focused on judging specific and often than the past, because one wishes to escape past actions, Uhlmann, Pizarro, and Diermeier punishment. Yet research participants called for (2015) proposed that the core purpose of moral stronger punishments (and rewards) for their judgment is to assess people so as to predict their own future moral actions than past ones. future actions. Their argument fits well with the Thus, we have a sweeping pattern of moral- evolutionary analysis assuming that the human izing the future. Future actions are seen in the social mind evolved particularly to master coop- context of alternative possibilities and contin- eration with nonkin, something few other mam- gencies, much more than past actions. People mal species have achieved as a general way of life. hold higher moral standards for future than past Future cooperation is a key driver of moral actions—including their own. evolution (Tomasello, 2016; Tomasello et al., Monroe et al. (2017) provided additional evi- 2012). Humans evolved to cooperate, and ob- dence of the moralization of the future. Partici- taining food by either hunting or foraging soon pants all judged hypothetical actions, presented as required trusting and working with others. To if they had occurred but not importantly situated in survive, people had to ensure that others would time. The independent variable was whether peo- cooperate with them, so they had to develop ple had been primed to think about the future or concern to maintain a morally good reputation. the present, by having them rewrite sentences re- Moreover, it behooved human groups to ensure ferring either to the future or the present. When that particular individuals did not endlessly take they were in a future mindset, they judged hypo- benefits without contributing. On any particular thetical misdeeds more harshly than when they occasion, individual free riders may partake of were in a present-focused mindset. the spoils of others’ work without damaging the Some evidence even indicates that thinking group (as is seen in many primate groups), but about the future increases the moral quality of an ability to project into the future would rec- actions. Sjåstad (2017) found that participants ognize that continuing in that pattern would who adopted a future-oriented mindset shared undermine the group’s productive functioning. more money with others in public choice sce- Hence prospection facilitated the evolution of narios, compared to participants in a control moral sentiments to punish individuals who group who focused on the present. Thinking shared in group benefits without contributing about the future did not increase purely altruis- (Price, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2002). tic cooperation in the form of anonymous gen- More broadly, if you want your society to erosity—rather, it mainly increased sharing that thrive in the future, then you want it to be highly was linked to maintaining a good moral reputa- moral, so that people can be trusted to be honest tion. Thus, much in line with Tomasello’s and fair and responsible, and to do their jobs (2016) work, these findings suggest that the ethically and conscientiously. Promoting moral- future-oriented aspect of morality is deeply ity in your social group will build a better so- rooted in pragmatic and strategic concerns. ciety and hence better life for you and your In sum, morality essentially involves a con- progeny. Based on this line of reasoning, one text of multiple possible actions, and a key could predict selective moralization of the fu- purpose of morality is to encourage perfor- ture: People should be extra vigilant about the mance of some actions rather than others. Al- moral quality of future possible actions. though many moral reactions to specific actions People do moralize the future. Caruso (2010) are automatic, the full power of morality de- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. noted that the moral wrongness of a misdeed pends on conscious consideration of alternative This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. should in principle be the same regardless of possibilities—especially those lying in the fu- whether the misdeed occurs yesterday, today, or ture. Much moral thought is driven by preparing tomorrow. Yet participants in his studies repeat- for future actions and trying to anticipate which edly made stronger moral judgments about other persons deserve future trust. identical actions situated in the future than the past. Sjåstad and Baumeister (2017b) noted that Anticipated Emotions it might simply be selfish to insist that other people behave morally in the future, but such Emotions are conscious states, and indeed the concerns would dictate that one’s own actions causal role of experimentally induced emotions should be treated more leniently in the future is one important and potent rejoinder to theo- 10 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

rists who doubt that consciousness causes be- In contrast, most people would readily exert havior (Baumeister, Masicampo, & Vohs, themselves to avoid prolonged future misery. 2011). However, when emotions directly cause Anticipated emotions are useful for evaluat- behavior, the results are often irrational and ing future possible courses of action—but the self-defeating—which severely complicates any matrix of maybe is a crucial context for its theory that emotions evolved to drive behavior, usefulness. The purpose of thinking “If I do X, because natural selection would select against I will be happy, but if I do Y, I will regret it and anything that produced self-destructive out- feel guilty” is to encourage the agent to choose comes. Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, and Zhang to do X instead of Y. One implication, however, (2007) concluded from a literature review that is that anticipation of emotional outcomes may emotion operates as part of a feedback loop to shift based on the agent’s current states and guide behavior, rather than directly initiating capacities. Recent studies have provided some action. As people learn what actions produce support for such changes in emotional anticipa- what emotional outcomes, they begin to guide tion. Ent and Baumeister (2016) found that the behavior based on anticipated (as opposed to state of ego depletion reduced anticipated guilt. currently experienced) emotions. That is, participants had to articulate several Since Baumeister et al.’s (2007) article, evi- personal goals and then were asked to predict dence has continued to accumulate for the im- how guilty they would feel if they were to fail to portance of anticipated emotions. A large meta- reach all of these goals. Participants in whom analysis by DeWall, Baumeister, Chester, and the experimental procedures had induced a state Bushman (2016) found that the vast majority of of reduced resources for agentic volition—for mediation analyses in social psychology have whom, therefore, reaching goals would seem yielded nonsignificant results for currently felt extra difficult—downplayed how guilty they emotion. In contrast, anticipated emotion was would feel over failure. This fits the view that generally significant as a mediator when it was anticipated guilt helps motivate people to exert measured and tested, although such reports effort to achieve their goals. As the goals start to were infrequent. Their call for more study of seem unattainable, the utility of guilt dwindles, anticipated emotions has begun to bring more and so people cease to anticipate guilt. such results. Baker, McNulty, and VanderDrift Recent evidence confirms that people adjust (2017) overturned decades of work based on their emotional expectations for motivational relationship satisfaction and commitment by purposes. Sjåstad, Baumeister, and Ent (2017) showing that anticipated future satisfaction af- asked participants to predict how happy they fected commitment more than did current satis- would be to achieve a perfect score on an up- faction—and even the familiar effects of current coming 6-item test (which in some procedures satisfaction were mediated by anticipated satis- carried a prize) after having gotten either 2 or 5 faction. Thus, current feelings toward one’s correct on an initial, warm-up test. Logically, partner are mainly influential insofar as they improving from 2 to 6 should bring more de- serve to predict future satisfaction. light than improving from 5 to 6, and that is One large program of research on anticipated what people predicted other people would feel. emotion has involved affective forecasting, that When predicting their own reactions, however, is, predicting one’s future emotions (Gilbert & the initial score of 2 made the goal of 6 seem Wilson, 2007; Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blum- unattainable, and people disengaged—that is, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. berg, & Wheatley, 1998). A broad theme has they predicted relatively little happiness would This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. been that people predict correctly which emo- ensue even if they were to achieve the perfect tions will ensue but overestimate their duration score. Actually, the predictions were wrong: and intensity. As noted by Baumeister et al. When people took the second test and were (2007), this fits the view that anticipated emo- informed they did achieve a perfect score, they tions are useful for guiding behavior—presum- were very and equally happy regardless of first- ably they can do this more effectively if their round score. strength and duration are overestimated. After The role of conscious simulation in planning all, who would go out of their way to avoid a future actions involves anticipated emotion. brief, minor twinge of bad feeling, especially as Damasio (1994) studied people with brain inju- opposed to a long and nasty bout of dysphoria? ries that stifled emotional responses. They were CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUTURE AS A MATRIX OF MAYBE 11

quite able to project future possibilities, but they go beyond this to show other uses of the matrix were unable to choose among them, even for of maybe. something as minor as scheduling the next ap- Maintaining the multiplicity of options may pointment. The implication is that the conscious itself be desirable. Reactance theory asserted mind envisions future possible courses of ac- that people desire to maintain multiple options, tions and outcomes and then also mentally sim- so when one option is removed people suddenly ulates what emotions one will likely feel with find it more attractive and like it better than they each. This is a crucial basis for deciding. Hitting did beforehand (Brehm, 1966). That work was someone or drinking too much or sleeping with typically couched in an interpersonal context, the wrong person may seem appealing in the such that another person threatened the partici- short run, but if one can forecast the future in pant’s freedom, but even apart from specific which these actions will lead to extended regret interpersonal threats, people may seek to pre- and other unhappy emotions, one can perhaps serve a multiplicity of options. make a wiser choice. It even appears that people have an irrational A disturbing corollary is that some courses of affection for uncertainty. Tormala, Jia, and Nor- action may bring positive emotion in the near ton (2012) showed that people react more fa- future but unhappiness, even misery, in the long vorably to potential future achievement than run—so people wishing to enjoy the imminent identical but already existing achievement. For rewards may strategically stop thinking about example, they prefer to hire someone recom- the future. A classic study by Petry, Bickel, and mended as potentially prize-winning than some- Arnett (1998) assigned students and heroin ad- one who has actually won the same prize. dicts to complete a story in which a man woke A further application of conscious prospec- up and began to think about the future. The tion to the multiplicity of futures is that people students’ stories typically extended about 5 may adjust their present behaviors based on the years into the future, whereas the heroin ad- matrix of maybe, not just to seek a particular dicts’ stories extended less than two weeks. future outcome over its alternatives, but even to With addiction, of course, the positive emotions maintain the availability of multiple options. are near at hand whereas the (often consider- Shin and Ariely (2004) showed that decision able) costs lie farther in the future, and so cur- makers preferred to retain multiple options and tailing prospection enables them to avoid antic- were reluctant to lose any options—even when ipating the costs of their actions. Bickel, Odum, those options were of little interest or appeal. In and Madden (1999) showed that cigarette these experiments, decision makers would sac- smokers discounted the future in an economic rifice resources, including both effort and delay-discounting paradigm. Crucially, how- money, to “keep doors open,” that is, preserve ever, ex-smokers valued the future as much as the multiplicity of possible outcomes. never-smokers. A possible implication is that Unchosen options can reduce stress. Glass, the refusal to think far in the future is a cogni- Singer, and Friedman (1969) showed that expo- tive defense employed by addicts that helps sure to unpredictable stress had substantial costs sustain their self-destructive behavior pattern. in terms of impaired concentration and in- Thus, people guide current behavior partly on creased errors on subsequent tasks. These ef- the basis of anticipated future emotions, and to fects were eliminated, however, among partici- do so is largely adaptive. Some strategically pants who had been told they had a “panic This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. manipulate or ignore their prospective emotions button” during the stress exposure. In that con- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. to protect themselves from feeling bad or to dition, the experimenter told participants that enable themselves to engage in pleasurable in- they could terminate the stressful noise by dulgences that carry long-term costs. pressing a button on the desk if the noise be- came too aversive. The experimenter said press- Anticipating Multiplicities of Possibilities ing the button would ruin the data, and in fact no participant ever pressed it. (It would not have Thus far we have emphasized projecting the worked anyway.) Yet having it there reduced multimaybe matrix as an aid to promote a par- the harmful effects of the stressful noise. Thus, ticular future outcome over its alternatives. We a false conscious belief in the availability of one round out our review by covering findings that future option, namely that one could escape 12 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

from stress should it become highly unpleasant, people. The common assumption that good self- eliminated the negative aftereffects of the stress. control enables one to resist problematic desires Several implications for the matrix of maybe had led to the opposite prediction. But appar- follow from the panic button effect. First, it ently good self-control operates more by avoid- indicates that a substantial part of the negative ing than by resisting temptation: People high in aspect of stress is not the exposure to negative trait self-control reported fewer problematic de- stimulation itself but rather the threatening pos- sires, so there was less need to resist them. It is sibility that it could continue and get worse, the people with low self-control who despite thereby exceeding the person’s coping re- having resolved abstinence find themselves in sources. Prospective threat alters current con- the bar with friends, struggling to remember scious processing and affective reactions. Thus, exactly why they should not even have one little the effects of stress can have a prospective beer, and so on. dimension. Further work by Ent, Baumeister, and Tice Second, the multiplicity of options, as re- (2015) provided explicit evidence that people flected in this case by having an option that one with high trait self-control avoid temptation, never exercises, can mitigate the negative im- thereby prospectively altering their matrix of pact of what does actually happen. Thus, psy- possibilities. Participants high in trait self- chological consequences ensue not just from control reported more proactive avoidance of what actually happens but also from the fact that temptation. These behaviors included not only something is (was) merely possible. The panic avoiding situations containing immoral tempta- button removes from the matrix the threatening tions but also choosing friends who facilitate possibility that the current unpleasantness could approaching one’s goals, making careful plans, become intolerable. (If it did, one could just and selecting places to work based on absence press the button and end the unpleasantness.) of potential distractions. In one experimental Other lines of work suggest that people adjust study, participants high in self-control were their current actions targeting not actual out- more likely than others to choose to wait for a comes but sets of possibilities. Avoidance of quiet room to take a test, as opposed to taking a temptation is one prominent example. (In this readily available but noisy room. Ent et al. also case, one helps one’s cause not by preserving showed that high self-control predicted choos- options but by foreclosing troublesome ing a test format that minimized presentation of ones—as with precommitment.) Presumably by fascinating distractors. avoiding temptation, one can reduce the These studies show that people value not just chances of succumbing to regrettable indul- specific options but the very presence of multi- gence—even though technically one could al- ple options. Having multiple options is valued ways decline to exercise that option at a later despite the fact that not all of them can come point. The reformed alcoholic who enters a bar true. They may contribute to coping planning: with friends and consumes only nonalcoholic Should things go not quite as desired, one has beverages proves that the availability (possibil- additional options and can change course. This ity) of alcohol does not itself produce relapse, restores control to the (future) agent. but people who strategically avoid even having the option, such as by never entering the bar, Discussion and Conclusions have a higher success rate at quitting addiction This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. than those who count on their resolve and will- People think about the future, not primarily This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. power to prevent lapse. Likewise, having sweets as an attempt to predict what is bound to hap- and chips in the cabinet does not doom a dieter pen, but as a series of points at which events can to failure, but many dieters wisely prefer to go in different directions. The future is less a eliminate temptation by removing all such matter of something to be known than some- foods from their kitchens. thing to be shaped and guided amid multiple The strategic avoidance of temptation has alternative possibilities. The ancient and peren- been shown in various studies. Hofmann, nially appealing notions of fate, destiny, predes- Baumeister, Förster, and Vohs (2012) were sur- tination, and determinism say that one particular prised to find that people scoring high in trait future is already inevitable and could in princi- self-control resisted fewer desires than other ple be known from the present. But contrary to CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUTURE AS A MATRIX OF MAYBE 13

them, we have presented evidence that people trix of maybe. Several lines of evidence suggested think of the future as a matrix of maybe, in that the unconscious operates on the basis of a which a great many things might happen but largely deterministic worldview. The unconscious also might not happen. Such a view is precisely can execute simple plans but appears to require what would be most pragmatic for an agent conscious thought to create them (hence the whose choices and performances can steer Zeigarnik effect). Automatic, simple forecasts events one way or another (thus obviously as- tend to be optimistic, whereas conscious thought suming that both ways are possible). One of the is required for the more complex and nuanced most important functions of human conscious processes of contemplating obstacles and plan- thought is to simulate how one’s various possi- ning. Automatic responses treat immoral actions ble actions and choices will lead to different as simply impossible, whereas conscious thought outcomes and to evaluate those, so as to know allows them as possible. which ones to favor. Meaning is central to the projection of the We cited Evans’s (2008) view that theories of future as a matrix of maybe. Meaning inherently consciousness focus on awareness and volition. locates entities in context of alternative possi- Simple animals are aware of what is immedi- bilities. Meaning as nonphysical connection is ately present and choose a response. Human also vital for making conceptual links among awareness, involving conscious thought, does the present and various possible future events. much more. It can project an array of possible Further work may find that prospection helps future outcomes linked to various actions and with the grand question of how consciousness external contingencies, and on that basis, it can and language are interrelated. initiate an action not merely as a response to an The notion that the unconscious holds a de- immediate stimulus but as a strategic and pro- terministic worldview whereas the conscious active way of steering events toward desired mind embraces multiple possible outcomes is outcomes far beyond what is immediately dis- consistent with evidence about free will. Shep- cernible. Some human actions are explicitly herd (2012) found that people associate free will aimed at outcomes in the distant future, even with conscious choice, and indeed the notion of beyond the end of the actor’s life. unconscious free will has hardly ever been We reviewed multiple lines of evidence indi- taken seriously in the extensive, multidisci- cating that people regard the future as a matrix of plinary literature about freedom of action. The maybe, that is, a set of sometimes incompatible link between free action and conscious thought possibilities. People seek to preserve options. may well reflect the specific power of conscious They adjust current behavior based on comparing thought to conceptualize a multimaybe matrix the anticipated emotional outcomes from various and to guide action on that basis. lines of action. They think about the future more Thinking about the future seems linked to than the past in terms of multiple alternative pos- conscious agency, and indeed the near future is sibilities and outcomes. The majority of prospec- particularly potent in this regard. The emphasis tive thinking has some element of planning, which on the near future is consistent with pragmatic is designed to produce particular outcomes rather prospection theory, because it is urgent to pre- than the alternatives. People first optimistically pare for imminent actions and choices, whereas project desired outcomes and then pessimistically more distal ones can wait. consider all that can go wrong. Articulating goals In general, then, people think about the future This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. and desired outcomes is relatively easy, but mak- to prepare their actions and responses. Con- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ing plans for how to realize them requires mental sciousness is a powerful mechanism for project- effort and self-control. People moralize the future ing multiple alternative possibilities, evaluating more than the past, presumably in the hope of them with the help of anticipated emotional ensuring better actions by both self and others. outcomes. The power of human consciousness Some avoid temptation so as to remove some resides only partly in representing and interpret- tempting but disapproved options from the matrix ing the world as it is. Alongside that, and per- of what will be possible. Above all, they recognize haps far more important, consciousness can the future as changeable whereas the past is not. simulate what is not there, indeed what might Our review also indicated the importance of but also might not happen. People who base conscious thought for treating the future as a ma- their actions on such simulations of future pos- 14 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

sibilities, thereby capitalizing on this power of Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Oettingen, G. the human conscious mind, get through life (2016). Pragmatic prospection: How and why peo- much more successfully than those who do not. ple think about the future. Review of General Psychology, 20, 3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ gpr0000060 Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). References Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: Delay dis- Baird, B., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). counting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psy- Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and chopharmacology, 146, 447–454. http://dx.doi the functionality of mind-wandering. Conscious- .org/10.1007/PL00005490 ness and Cognition: An International Journal, 20, Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reac- 1604–1611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog tance. New York, NY: Academic Press. .2011.08.007 Brun, W., & Teigen, K. H. (1990). Prediction and Baker, L. R., McNulty, J. K., & VanderDrift, L. E. postdiction preferences in guessing. Journal of Be- (2017). Expectations for future relationship satis- havioral Decision Making, 3, 17–28. http://dx.doi faction: Unique sources and critical implications .org/10.1002/bdm.3960030103 for commitment. Journal of Experimental Psy- Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commit- chology: General, 146, 700–721. http://dx.doi.org/ ment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2, 10.1037/xge0000299 671–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eco- Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: Cultural change nomics.102308.124324 and the struggle for self. Oxford, UK: Oxford Caruso, E. M. (2010). When the future feels worse University Press. than the past: A temporal inconsistency in moral Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: problem: A psychological review of historical re- General, 139, 610–624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- a0020757 ogy, 52, 163–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- Cooney, G., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2016). 3514.52.1.163 When fairness matters less than we expect. Pro- Baumeister, R. F., & Masicampo, E. J. (2010). Con- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of scious thought is for facilitating social and cultural the United States of America, 113, 11168–11171. interactions: How mental simulations serve the http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606574113 animal-culture interface. Psychological Review, Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, 117, 945–971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019393 reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & Vohs, K. D. Avon Books. (2011). Do conscious thoughts cause behavior? DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Chester, D. S., & Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 331–361. http:// Bushman, B. J. (2016). How often does currently dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131126 felt emotion predict social behavior and judgment? Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Toward a A meta-analytic test of two theories. Emotion theory of situational structure. Environment and Review, 8, 136–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Behavior, 17, 147–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1754073915572690 0013916585172001 Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in ratio- Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Strength nality, precommitment, and constraints. Cam- model of self-regulation as limited resource: As- bridge, UK: Cambridge University press. http://dx sessment, controversies, update. Advances in Ex- .doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625008 perimental Social Psychology, 54, 67–127. http:// Ent, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Ego depletion dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.04.001 attenuates anticipated guilt. Unpublished manu- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & script, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notZhang, to be disseminated broadly. L. (2007). How emotion shapes behav- Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2015). ior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptation. than direct causation. Personality and Social Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 12–15. Psychology Review, 11, 167–203. http://dx.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.031 .org/10.1177/1088868307301033 Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Hofmann, W., Sum- reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual merville, A., & Reiss, P. (2017). Everyday Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. http://dx.doi thoughts about past, present, and future: An expe- .org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 rience sampling study of mental time travel. Man- Ferrante, D., Girotto, V., Straga`, M., & Walsh, C. uscript submitted for publication, University of (2013). Improving the past and the future: A tem- Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. poral asymmetry in hypothetical thinking. Journal CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUTURE AS A MATRIX OF MAYBE 15

of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 23–27. Monroe, A. E., Ainsworth, S., Baumeister, R. F., & http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027947 Vohs, K. D. (2017). Fearing the future? Future- Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social per- oriented thought produces aversion to risky invest- ception. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 155– ments, trust, and immorality. Social Cognition, 35, 194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44 66–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35 .020193.001103 .1.66 Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking positive thinking: S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A Inside the new science of motivation. New York, source of durability bias in affective forecasting. NY: Penguin Random House. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, Osvath, M. (2009). Spontaneous planning for future 617–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75 stone throwing by a male chimpanzee. Current .3.617 Biology, 19, R190–R191. http://dx.doi.org/10 Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: .1016/j.cub.2009.01.010 Experiencing the future. Science, 317, 1351–1354. Petry, N. M., Bickel, W. K., & Arnett, M. (1998). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1144161 Shortened time horizons and insensitivity to future Glass, D. C., Singer, J. E., & Friedman, L. N. (1969). consequences in heroin addicts. Addiction, 93, Psychic cost of adaptation to an environmental 729–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443 stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- .1998.9357298.x chology, 12, 200–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Phillips, J., & Cushman, F. (2017). Morality con- h0027629 strains the default representation of what is possi- Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: ble. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychol- ences of the United States of America, 114, 4649– ogist, 54, 493–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 4654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619717114 0003-066X.54.7.493 Price, M. E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2002). Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und zeit [Being and Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psycho- Time]. Tubingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Ver- logical device. Evolution and Human Behavior, lag. 23, 203–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090- Helzer, E. G., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Whatever is 5138(01)00093-9 willed will be: A temporal asymmetry in attribu- Redshaw, J., & Suddendorf, T. (2016). Children’s tions to will. Personality and Social Psychology and apes’ preparatory responses to two mutually Bulletin, 38, 1235–1246. http://dx.doi.org/10 exclusive possibilities. Current Biology, 26, 1758– .1177/0146167212448403 1762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.062 Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Roberts, W. A. (2002). Are animals stuck in time? Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An Psychological Bulletin, 128, 473–489. http://dx experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and .doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.473 self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Rogers, T., Moore, D. A., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Psychology, 102, 1318–1335. http://dx.doi.org/10 The belief in a favorable future. Psychological .1037/a0026545 Science, 28, 1290–1301. http://dx.doi.org/10 James, W. (1983). The principles of psychology. .1177/0956797617706706 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Orig- Rothbart, M., & Snyder, M. (1970). Confidence in inal work published 1890) the prediction and postdiction of an uncertain out- Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic come. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/ discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Econom- Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comporte- ics, 112, 443–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ ment, 2, 38–43. 003355397555253 Seligman, M. E., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Laibson, D., Repetto, A., Tobacman, J., Hall, R. E., Sripada, C. (2016). Homo prospectus. New York, This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notGale, to be disseminated broadly. W. G., & Akerlof, G. A. (1998). Self control NY: Oxford University Press. and savings for retirement. Brookings Papers on Shariff, A. F., Greene, J. D., Karremans, J. C., Lu- Economic Activity, 1998, 91–172. http://dx.doi guri, J. B., Clark, C. J., Schooler, J. W.,...Vohs, .org/10.2307/2534671 K. D. (2014). Free will and punishment: A mech- Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Con- anistic view of human nature reduces retribution. sider it done! Plan making can eliminate the cog- Psychological Science, 25, 1563–1570. http://dx nitive effects of unfulfilled goals. Journal of Per- .doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534693 sonality and Social Psychology, 101, 667–683. Shepherd, J. (2012). Free will and consciousness: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024192 Experimental studies. Consciousness and Cogni- May, R., Angel, E., & Ellenberger, H. F. (1958). tion: An International Journal, 21, 915–927. Existence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.03.004 16 BAUMEISTER, MARANGES, AND SJÅSTAD

Shepperd, J. A., Klein, W. M. P., Waters, E. A., & quality of debate. Current Directions in Psycho- Weinstein, N. D. (2013). Taking stock of unreal- logical Science, 23, 290–295. http://dx.doi.org/10 istic optimism. Perspectives on Psychological Sci- .1177/0963721414534257 ence, 8, 395–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic 1745691613485247 theory of self-control. Journal of Political Econ- Shin, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Keeping doors open: omy, 89, 392–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ The effect of unavailability on incentives to keep 260971 options viable. Management Science, 50, 575–586. Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0148 morality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Sjåstad, H. (2017). Short-sighted greed? Focusing on Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/9780674915855 the future promotes (strategic) cooperation. Un- Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E., published manuscript, Norwegian School of Eco- Herrmann, E., Gilby, I. C.,...Melis, A. (2012). nomics, Bergen, Norway. Two key steps in the evolution of human cooper- Sjåstad, H., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017a). A two-stage ation: The interdependence hypothesis. Current model of prospection: Fast optimism, slow pessi- Anthropology, 53, 673–692. http://dx.doi.org/10 mism. Unpublished manuscript, Norwegian School .1086/668207 of Economics, Bergen, Norway. Tormala, Z. L., Jia, J. S., & Norton, M. I. (2012). The Sjåstad, H., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017b). Moral preference for potential. Journal of Personality self-judgment is stronger in the future than in the and Social Psychology, 103, 567–583. http://dx past. Manuscript submitted for publication, Nor- .doi.org/10.1037/a0029227 wegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway. Townsend, C., & Liu, W. (2012). Is planning good Sjåstad, H., & Baumeister, R. F. (2018). The future for you? The differential impact of planning on and the will: Planning requires self-control, and self-regulation. Journal of Consumer Research, ego depletion leads to planning aversion. Journal 39, 688–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/665053 of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 127–141. Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). Sjåstad, H., Baumeister, R. F., & Ent, M. R. (2017). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Per- Greener grass or sour grapes? How people value spectives on Psychological Science, 10, 72–81. future rewards after initial failure. Manuscript http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691614556679 submitted for publication, Norwegian School of von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). Reflections on Economics, Bergen, Norway. self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 41– Sniehotta, F. F., Schwarzer, R., Scholz, U., & Schüz, 56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10003018 B. (2005). Action planning and coping planning Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about for long-term lifestyle change: Theory and assess- future life events. Journal of Personality and So- ment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, cial Psychology, 39, 806–820. http://dx.doi.org/10 565–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.258 .1037/0022-3514.39.5.806 Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and Zeigarnik, B. (1938). On finished and unfinished well-being: A social psychological perspective on tasks. In W. D. Ellis (Trans. & Ed.), A source book mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193– of gestalt psychology (pp. 300–314). London, UK: 210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2 Routledge, Trench, Trubner & Co. http://dx.doi .193 .org/10.1037/11496-025 Tenney, E. R., Logg, J. M., & Moore, D. A. (2015). Zullow, H. M., Oettingen, G., Peterson, C., & Selig- (Too) optimistic about optimism: The belief that man, M. E. P. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory optimism improves performance. Journal of Per- style in the historical record: CAVing LBJ, presi- sonality and Social Psychology, 108, 377–399. dential candidates, and East versus West Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000018 American Psychologist, 43, 673–682. http://dx.doi Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2016). Superforecast-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. .org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.9.673 ing: The art and science of prediction. New York, This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notNY: to be disseminated broadly. Random House. Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., Rohrbaugh, N., & Received August 30, 2017 Chen, E. (2014). Forecasting tournaments: Tools Revision received January 8, 2018 for increasing transparency and improving the Accepted January 20, 2018 Ⅲ