Running head: VARIETIES OF FUTURE THINKING
The fields of psychology and neuroscience are replete with research that focuses on the ability to think about the future. Recently, we proposed that future oriented cognition could be organized into four distinct modes, namely simulation, prediction, intention, and planning. Moreover, our framework posits that each mode of future thinking can vary in terms of the extent to which its contents focus on specific autobiographical experiences and abstract or general knowledge. In this chapter, we provide a brief overview of the various forms of future thinking that fall under the purview of our taxonomic organization, provide details regarding the methods that are typically employed in the study of each sub category of future thinking, and highlight the manner in which these modes of future thinking may interact with one another. We conclude by offering some suggestions for future work. Running head: VARIETIES OF FUTURE THINKING 4 4 Varieties of Future Thinking The contents of the present volume demonstrate that the topic of future thinking, often referred to as prospection (Gilbert Wilson, 2007) has made a significant impact in the fields of psychology and neuroscience. However, there are many ways in which people are able to think about the future. On a daily basis, people think about and evaluate possible encounters with colleagues, family members, romantic partners, and even their future selves; form intentions to deliver messages, take prescribed medications, and pick up miscellaneous items at the convenience store; and plan daily routines, vacations, and savings strategies for retirement (see D'Argembeau, Renaud, Van Der Linden, 2011) Despite the vast diversity in ways in which people think about the future, we recently proposed that prospective cognition can be organized into four basic modes of future thinking (Szpunar, Spreng, Schacter, 2014) simulation (construction of a detailed mental representation of the future) prediction (estimation of the likelihood of, and/or one's reaction to, a particular future outcome) intention (the mental act of setting a goal) and planning (the identification and organization of steps toward achieving a goal state) In addition to proposing that prospection can be parsed into four distinct categories, our framework also holds that these modes of future thinking can vary in terms of their representational contents. Specifically, the framework relates simulation, prediction, intention, and planning to two well characterized types of memory or knowledge: episodic and semantic (Tulving, 2002) In this context, the term episodic is meant to refer to simulations, predictions, intentions, or plans in relation to specific autobiographical events that may take place in the future (e.g. thinking about an upcoming experience that will take place next week) The term semantic is meant to refer to simulations, predictions, intentions, and plans that relate to more Running head: VARIETIES OF FUTURE THINKING 5 5 general or abstract states of the world that may arise in the future (e.g. thinking about what the environmental state of the world will be like 50 years from now; for a review, see Abraham Bubic, 2015) It is important to highlight that even semantic variants of prospection may sometimes be infused with episodic content (e.g. simulating aspects of one's own life in the context of an abstract vision of the future world) Nonetheless, distinctions between episodic and semantic forms of prospection have led to the demonstration of striking dissociations in the literature, particularly in relation to the concept of simulation (see section below on Semantic Simulation) underscoring the importance of this distinction for research on prospection. Finally, in addition to the possibility that episodic and semantic prospection may at times overlap with one another,vision of the future world) Nonetheless, distinctions between episodic and semantic forms of prospection have led to the demonstration of striking dissociations in the literature, particularly in relation to the concept of simulation (see section below on Semantic Simulation) underscoring the importance of this distinction for research on prospection. Finally, in addition to the possibility that episodic and semantic prospection may at times overlap with one another, we note that not all instances of future thinking can be strictly classified as either episodic or semantic. Specifically, some instances of future thinking represent autobiographical states general states of the world that are autobiographical in nature; e.g. imagining that one will attain their career aspirations in the future. Indeed, considerable research related to goal pursuit has focused on future autobiographical states (e.g. attaining a desired job, dating a desired romantic partner; e.g. Oettingen Mayer, 2002) To accommodate such hybrid forms of future thinking, our framework conceptualizes the episodic semantic distinction as a continuous variable. Thus, the result of our approach to delineating prospection is a set of four basic modes of futureoriented cognition that may vary in the extent to which they draw on episodic and semantic knowledge structures (see Figure 1; see also Szpunar, Spreng et al. 2014) In this chapter, we elaborate on the various modes of future thinking that fall within the purview of our classification scheme. In order to facilitate cross fertilization of ideas across disparate areas of research, we frame our discussion around specific methods that are used to Running head: VARIETIES OF FUTURE THINKING 6 6 study these different ways of thinking about the future. We focus primarily on methods used to study episodic forms of simulation, prediction, intention, and planning because a complete survey of the methods to study future oriented cognition would be well beyond the scope of this chapter, and many of the methods used in the study of episodic forms of future thinking have turned out to be useful for the study of semantic and hybrid forms of future thinking. Finally, we consider how various modes of future thinking may interact with one another to support adaptive behavior. Notably, psychologists have previously considered relations among various modes of future oriented cognition as they pertain to goal pursuit and behavioral outcomes. For instance, those interested in the impact of mental simulation on behavior have shown that the specific focus of simulation (e.g. positive or negative) can interact with expected (or predicted) performance to determine behavioral outcomes (e.g. Oettingen Wadden, 1991) Expectancyvalue theorists have considered the role of expectations (or predictions) in commitment to intentions (e.g. Wigfield Eccles, 2000) More recent work on mental contrasting the act of juxtaposing a positive future outcome with present circumstances has highlighted interrelations between simulation, prediction, intention, and planning (for a recent review, see Oettingen, 2012) Nonetheless, other literatures relevant to future oriented cognition have been carried out in relative isolation from one another. For instance, recent work on the cognitive and neural mechanisms that support the ability to construct detailed simulations of the future (Schacter, Addis, Buckner, 2008) limitations in the ability to predict future outcomes (Gilbert Wilson, 2007) the ability to remember to carry out intentions in the future (Kliegel, McDaniel, Einstein, 2008) and the ability to generate complex organizational plans for behavior (Ward Morris, 2005) have engaged in relatively little cross talk. Importantly, more recent work has Running head: VARIETIES OF FUTURE THINKING 7 7 begun to highlight possible connections between these more disparate lines of research. We use our proposed framework as a means of highlighting these exciting developments in the field. Simulation The construct of simulation has been used to define the ability to cognitively represent various aspects of personal experience, including real or imagined events (Taylor Schneider, 1989) the minds of others (Goldman, 2006) and person environment interactions (Barsalou, 2003) Here, we take simulation to refer to the construction of hypothetical events both specific and general (for further discussion, see Schacter et al. 2008) Research studies on simulation typically assess the ability to generate detailed mental representations of hypothetical events/states of the world. In most cases, participants are provided with generic cues (e.g. Imagine a future event that might take place in your/the world's future in the next 5 years) and given a few seconds to a few minutes to simulate events/states of the world. Simulations are typically evaluated on the basis of the levels of phenomenological detail (e.g. how vivid/coherent was your mental representation? and/or more objective measures of event detail, such as scoring participant generated narratives for the presence/absence of internal/episodic (e.g. details about specific people, places, and so on) and external/semantic (e.g. general/background information) detail using guidelines set forth by the Autobiographical Interview (Levine, Svoboda, Hay, Winocur, Moscovitch, 2002) Although much of the extant research of this sort has focused on episodic simulation, these methods are easily applicable to other forms of simulation, as discussed below. Episodic simulation. Episodic simulation is the construction of a detailed mental representation of a specific autobiographical future event (Schacter et al. 2008) Considerable work has focused on delineating the relation of episodic simulation to episodic memory and on Running head: VARIETIES OF FUTURE THINKING 8 8 identifying their common neural correlates. In most such studies, participants are required to provide details about past and future experiences in response to generic cues (e.g. Tell me about your past/future