Enforcing pragmatic future‐mindedness cures the innovator's bias

Abstract

Conflict of interest: Given the results of this paper do not position BetterUp to profit or gain in any material sense, we do not feel the fact that the authors were paid by the sponsoring institution constitutes a conflict of interest.Data availability: The data necessary to reproduce results presented herein are publicly available at osf.io/ew9cq.We have adhered to the APA guidelines in preparing the manuscript, and complied with the APA ethical standards in the treatment of research participants. This research was IRB approved by Ethical and Independent Review Services (E&I) under protocol #18164-03.

Broadening horizons of the possible in education

“…''What if-not'' and ''if-not then'' thinking involves proactively considering what they will do if their actions do not result in expected or beneficial outcomes. Engaging in this kind of thinking can help to address ''innovator bias'' (Reece et al, 2023), which represents a form of unchecked enthusiasm for implementing new possibilities.…”

Playing the long game: Carrying out principled tests of psychological phenomena before developing formal theories

“…Reece et al (2023) demonstrate “innovator's bias” (a tendency for innovators to focus mainly on the positive potential impacts of their inventions and to ignore potential negative consequences) among US participants; they also test potential interventions to reduce this bias.…”

“…McClure and Cole (2022) asked UK participants to elaborate spontaneously about their active goals early in the COVID-19 pandemic; reflecting on pandemic-related goals was associated with a weaker sense of personal control and a stronger tendency to dwell on the present reality (rather than imagining a desired future). Reece et al (2023) demonstrate "innovator's bias" (a tendency for innovators to focus mainly on the positive potential impacts of their inventions and to ignore potential negative consequences) among US participants; they also test potential interventions to reduce this bias. Welker et al (2023) probe the issue of conversational pessimism by demonstrating that US participants evaluate their own informal conversational skills more negatively than they evaluate their abilities to engage in other common activities, and also disproportionately attribute the low points of a conversation to themselves.…”