Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T14:09:07.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High-stakes decisions do not require narrative conviction but narrative flexibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2023

Fritz Breithaupt Open the ORCID record for Fritz Breithaupt [Opens in a new window] ,
Milo Hicks ,
Benjamin Hiskes Open the ORCID record for Benjamin Hiskes [Opens in a new window]  and
Victoria Lagrange
Fritz Breithaupt
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA fbreitha@indiana.edu Experimental Humanities Lab, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA milohick@iu.edu bhiskes@iu.edu www.experimentalhumanities.com
Milo Hicks
Affiliation:
Experimental Humanities Lab, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA milohick@iu.edu bhiskes@iu.edu www.experimentalhumanities.com Department of English, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Benjamin Hiskes
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA fbreitha@indiana.edu Experimental Humanities Lab, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA milohick@iu.edu bhiskes@iu.edu www.experimentalhumanities.com Department of English, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Victoria Lagrange
Affiliation:
Experimental Humanities Lab, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA milohick@iu.edu bhiskes@iu.edu www.experimentalhumanities.com Department of English, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA. vlagrang@kennesaw.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We challenge Johnson et al.'s assumption that people reduce unclear situations to a single narrative explanation and that such reduction would be adaptive for decision-making under radical uncertainty. Instead, we argue that people imagine and maintain multiple narrative possibilities throughout the decision-making process and that this process provides cognitive flexibility and adaptive benefits within the proposed model.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e85
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Campion, N. (2004). Predictive inferences are represented as hypothetical facts. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, N. (1990). The philosophy of horror: Or, paradoxes of the heart. Routledge.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. (2001). The paradox of suspense. In Beyond aesthetics: Philosophical essays (pp. 254–270). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605970.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vega, M., Urrutia, M., & Rifo, B. (2007). Canceling updating in the comprehension of counterfactuals embedded in narratives. Memory & Cognition, 35(6), 1410–1421. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, H. J., & Jayes, L. T. (2018). Plausibility and perspective influence the processing of counterfactual narratives. Discourse Processes, 55(2), 166–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1330032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiskes, B., Hicks, M., Evola, S., Kincaid, C., & Breithaupt, F. (2022). Multiversionality: Considering multiple possibilities in the processing of narratives. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00621-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. K., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2015). Spoiler alert: Consequences of narrative spoilers for dimensions of enjoyment, appreciation, and transportation. Communication Research, 42(8), 1068–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214564051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavitt, J. D., & Christenfeld, N. J. (2011). Story spoilers don't spoil stories. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1152–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magliano, J. P., Dijkstra, K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Generating predictive inferences while viewing a movie. Discourse Processes 22(3): 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiller, R. J. (2019). Narrative economics: How stories go viral and drive major economic events. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar