Future‐focussed thinking: combining scenario planning with decision analysis

This paper first describes current practice in decision analysis and argues that nothing in the technique's application is likely to challenge the strategic decision maker's current worldview of the course of future events that are modelled in the decision tree. By contrast, a scenario planning intervention in an organization has the potential to increase perceived threat and thus lead to a step change in strategic decision making. Strategic decisions are made against a backcloth of the operation of psychological processes that act, it is argued, to reduce the perceived level of environmental threat and result in strategic inertia. For this reason, it is recommended that scenario planning should be adopted as a standard procedure because of its ability to challenge individual and organizational worldviews. The use of scenario planning prior to conventional decision analysis is termed as ‘future‐focussed thinking’, and parallels are drawn between the current advocated approach and that of Keeney's value‐focussed thinking. Both serve to prompt the creation of enhanced options for subsequent evaluation by conventional decision analytic techniques. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Book Symposium: Harry Brighouse,School Choice and Social Justice

Studies in Philosophy and Education -     

A Cross-National and Cross-Sectional Comparison of Men's Gender Role Conflict and Its Relationship to Social Intimacy and Self-Esteem

We hypothesized that men's nationality and age group would affect (a) their level of gender role conflict and (b) the strength of the relationship between gender role conflict and the psychological health variables of social intimacy and self-esteem. Three hundred twenty-five men (97 college-aged American, 86 middle-aged American, 82 college-aged Australian, and 60 middle-aged Australian) completed the Gender Role Conflict, Miller Social Intimacy, and Coopersmith Self-Esteem Scales. MANCOVA results revealed two significant interaction effects between (a) age group and social intimacy and (b) nationality and self-esteem. The discussion highlights a contextual interpretation of the results, limitations, and future research.     

GTIDHNIHS: I knew‐it‐all‐along

Individuals who do insight problems are highly susceptible to hindsight bias. Two sets of studies assessed the impact of hindsight consequences on participants' judgements about anagram difficulty and specific factors for performance. In the first set, hindsight participants underestimated anagram difficulty relative to participants with task experience (worksight). Also, supportive evidence revealed that hindsight consequences were related to self‐perceptions of confidence, ability, performance satisfaction, and subsequent performance expectations. In the second, two different hindsight techniques differentially impacted the participant's assessment of anagram difficulty. When comparing hindsight participants with and without worksight experience, the latter judged the anagrams to be easier. It is appropriate to examine further the cognitive and motivational consequences of hindsight bias in achievement situations. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Justification, Discovery, Reason & Argument

In distinguishing justification from discovery, the logical empiricists hoped to avoid confusing causal matters with normative ones. Exaggerating the virtue of this distinction, however, has disguised from us important features of the concept of a reason as it functions in human practice. Surfacing those features gives some insight into reasoning and argument.     

The fusion of horizons: Hans-Georg Gadamer and Wang Fu-Chih

Continental Philosophy Review -     

Culture and Conflict

Members of different cultures sample with diverse probabilities different kinds of information from their environment. Some sample the content of communications more than the context (e.g. tone of voice, gestures), whereas others do the reverse. Some sample processes internal to individuals (e.g. attitudes, beliefs) whereas others sample processes external to individuals (e.g. social influences, roles) with higher probabilities. Some give greater weights to ascribed attributes of persons, such as ethnicity, race, religion, and others to achieved attributes, such as beliefs, attitudes, or a record of achievements. These differences have profound implications for the probability of conflict and the type of conflict that will develop between individuals and groups.