Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Self Control in Society, Mind, and Brain$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Ran Hassin, Kevin Ochsner, and Yaacov Trope

Print publication date: 2010

Print ISBN-13: 9780195391381

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195391381.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 15 October 2019

Perish the Forethought: Premeditation Engenders Misperceptions of Personal Control

Perish the Forethought: Premeditation Engenders Misperceptions of Personal Control

Chapter:
(p.260) CHAPTER 14 Perish the Forethought: Premeditation Engenders Misperceptions of Personal Control
Source:
Self Control in Society, Mind, and Brain
Author(s):

Carey K. Morewedge

Kurt Gray

Daniel M. Wegner

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195391381.003.0014

People are normally encouraged to engage in premeditation—to think about the potential consequences of their behavior before acting. Indeed, planning, considering, and studying can be important precursors to decision-making, and often seem essential for effective action. This view of premeditation is shared by most humans, a kind of universal ideal, and it carries an additional interesting implication: Even the hint that premeditation occurred can serve as a potent cue indicating voluntary action, both to actors and observers. In legal and moral contexts, for example, actors are seen as especially culpable for the consequences of their actions if those consequences were premeditated, whether or not the premeditation influenced the decision. In this chapter, we review evidence indicating that even irrelevant premeditation can lead people to believe that an action's consequences were under personal control. We present research exploring how various forms of premeditation—including foresight, effortful forethought, wishful thinking, and the consideration of multiple possible outcomes of action—may lead actors to prefer and to feel responsible for action outcomes even when this premeditation has no causal relation to the outcomes.

Keywords:   premeditation, rational action, actors' perceptions, decision-making, complete control, random control, no control, priority, prior knowledge, delayed knowledge, consistency, intention, choice blindness, exclusivity, situational constraints, external influences, obedience experiments, cognitive dissonance, facilitated communication, controlled effort, Eureka error, meta-desires, counterfactual blame, dispositionalism, unconscious deliberation

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .