For you can't always get what you want: When preconditions are better explanations than goals

Abstract

Heider (1958) claimed that goals are normally better explanations of actions than preconditions, because people can manipulate the preconditions required for the action. Recent research supporting this view examined common actions where the conditions necessary for the action are readily available. The present studies show that when the preconditions necessary for an action are difficult to obtain, the availability of those conditions comprises a better explanation than the relevant goal. This trend is clearest with actions requiring substantial skills or money, although preconditions also rise in importance with common actions that are obstructed. These findings have important implications for theories of attribution, and they provide the basis for conceptual links between goal‐based theories and covariation models.

Distinguishing the effects of beliefs and preconditions: the folk psychology of goals and actions

“…If this prediction is borne out, we would have evidence that in folk theories, preconditions may serve to contribute to actors' motivation, meaning that the distinction between motivating and enabling factors is in need of revision (cf. McClure & Hilton, 1997;Sutton & McClure, 2001). However it would also show that preconditions' motivating role is not inevitable and is accounted for by those preconditions being represented in actors' minds as ability beliefs.…”

“…The dual causal role of preconditions is not acknowledged in research on goal-based attribution, which often assumes the distinct operation of causes that make people to want to do things versus those that enable people to do them (e.g. Leddo et al, 1984;McClure & Hilton, 1997;McClure, Lalljee, Jaspars, & Abelson, 1989). Indeed the terminology used by Sutton and McClure (2001), who consider goals to be 'motivating factors' and preconditions 'enabling factors' is confounded by this dual role.…”

“…In contrast to the apparent priority of ability beliefs over preconditions when observers impute goals, we hypothesized that preconditions would have a stronger effect than ability beliefs on predictions of the behaviours that actors actually perform. Research has shown that lay people judge preconditions and goals to be jointly necessary for actions to be performed (McClure & Hilton, 1997, 1998, and specifically that preconditions such as skills need to be available in the period intervening between the formation of an intention and the completion of an action (Malle, 2001;Malle & Knobe, 1997). Thus preconditions ought to predict actions in addition to the variance accounted for by goals alone.…”

“…Lalljee & Abelson, 1983;Leddo et al, 1984;McClure, 1998McClure, , 2002McClure & Hilton, 1997, 1998McClure, Lalljee, Jaspars, & Abelson, 1989;Read, 1987;Schank & Abelson, 1977). Preconditions comprise the various conditions that are necessary in order for actors to realize their intentions, and include environmental factors in addition to abilities and skills.…”

“…Research shows that people usually prefer goals to explain a wide range of common actions, but prefer preconditions to explain actions that are extreme in the sense that they are often not attainable (e.g. Johnson et al, 1994;Lalljee & Abelson, 1983;Leddo & Abelson, 1986;Leddo et al, 1984;McClure, 1998;McClure et al, 1991;McClure & Hilton, 1997;McGill, 1990;N'gbala & Branscombe, 1995;Reeder & Brewer, 1979;Sutton & McClure, 2001). Some causal questions can also lead people to prefer preconditions over goals as explanations (Malle et al, 2000;McClure, 2002;McClure & Hilton, 1998;McClure, Hilton, Cowan, Ishida, & Wilson, 2001).…”