A: What would be the consequences if you told everyone you were not wearing any underwear? B: writing it down: I would be really embarrassed for the rest of the day, and everyone would laugh at me so I wouldn’t want to show my face. A: Go do that. B: gives paper to A, does it (some time later) A: What were the consequences of telling people...? B: not reading the earlier paper I was a little embarrassed at the time, but people laughed so it was okay. Also, one person hit on me. A: shows paper to B They talk about the difference between the predictions and what actually happened. Instructor (optional): See, this and this were not physical consequences of the action, so that’s why your predictions were off-base.
Description:
2 participants. A asks B to do some action, ideally somewhere in the range that is emotionally-loaded but not completely inappropriate. B has to write down the consequences of that action (perhaps out to the end of the day / session), give the paper to A for safekeeping, and perform the action. Later, A asks B to describe what the consequences actually were and checks them against the written prediction. Ideally, an instructor points out any listed consequences that aren’t ‘legitimate’, and explains how they could have been improved.
Rationale:
We feel differently about consequences after the fact, so independently checking our predictions about consequences against our memories of consequences should highlight any ‘illegitimate’ consequences listed.
Caveats:
This might just be an exercise to combat Impact Bias, or other biases related to affective forecasting.
Exercise: Notice results.
Example: (participants A and B)
A: What would be the consequences if you told everyone you were not wearing any underwear?
B: writing it down: I would be really embarrassed for the rest of the day, and everyone would laugh at me so I wouldn’t want to show my face.
A: Go do that.
B: gives paper to A, does it
(some time later) A: What were the consequences of telling people...?
B: not reading the earlier paper I was a little embarrassed at the time, but people laughed so it was okay. Also, one person hit on me.
A: shows paper to B
They talk about the difference between the predictions and what actually happened.
Instructor (optional): See, this and this were not physical consequences of the action, so that’s why your predictions were off-base.
Description:
2 participants. A asks B to do some action, ideally somewhere in the range that is emotionally-loaded but not completely inappropriate. B has to write down the consequences of that action (perhaps out to the end of the day / session), give the paper to A for safekeeping, and perform the action. Later, A asks B to describe what the consequences actually were and checks them against the written prediction. Ideally, an instructor points out any listed consequences that aren’t ‘legitimate’, and explains how they could have been improved.
Rationale:
We feel differently about consequences after the fact, so independently checking our predictions about consequences against our memories of consequences should highlight any ‘illegitimate’ consequences listed.
Caveats:
This might just be an exercise to combat Impact Bias, or other biases related to affective forecasting.