Constraints on equifinality: Goals are good explanations only for controllable outcomes

Abstract

What makes a goal or a precondition a better explanation of an action or outcome? Recent research shows that whereas goals are preferred for common actions, preconditions are preferred for actions that require substantial resources, particularly when those actions are obstructed. Two studies examined whether judgments of goals and preconditions reflect the controllability of the events, and whether previous findings apply to events generated by participants. Participants judged goals and preconditions as explanations for desirable extreme and moderate events and assessed the controllability and probability of the events. For common events, goals were better explanations than preconditions, whereas for the extreme scenarios, preconditions were judged equal or better explanations. The extreme events were seen as less controllable than the moderate events, and the controllability of the events predicted judgments of goals as explanations. The results suggest that participants see goals as better explanations only for events that the person can control, and they judge preconditions to be good explanations for events where the person has little control. These findings suggest that equifinality may apply only to those actions and outcomes where the preconditions are readily obtainable.

Instrumental Divergence and the Value of Control

“…Complementing previous work on the diversity1011 and controllability255354 of decision outcomes, our results contribute toward a fuller characterization of goal-directed cognition and action.…”

Causes, reasons, and intent: Integrating attribution and social inference

“…Otherwise, the actor will not purchase the item. Certain preconditions are perceived to be necessary to enable an action to be accomplished, and difficult actions are seen as more heavily reliant on such preconditions (McClure, Densley, Liu, & Allen, 2001). On the other hand, sufficiency holds that some condition necessitates that something obtain; the action will occur if the cause is present.…”

“…Empirically, perceivers have been shown to prefer reason explanations when outcomes are not difficult (that is, necessary preconditions are satisfied), demonstrating an understanding about how means realize ends (Mazzone, 2011). Thus, at least where lay explainers are concerned, enabling factors (having enough money) link goals/desires (wanting something) and accomplishment of goals (e.g., buying something; e.g., see McClure at al., 2001). Thus, "causes" may be understood as enabling/necessary, and "reasons" or "intent" as sufficient for action.…”

“…Previous research on intention in one's own volitional behavior (Ajzen, 1985), and the reasoning that this pattern may extend to inferences about others, also suggests that this effect should be qualified by locus and control. In addition, perceivers have been shown to prefer reason explanations when outcomes are controllable by the actor (McClure, Densley, Liu, & Allen, 2001): a state of affairs that may be termed "personal control" or "free will". Thus participants should perceive outcomes as most intentional when they are results of internal, controllable causes, but only for successful performance.…”

“…Controllability is related to enabling conditions and constraints on action. Empirically, perceivers have been shown to prefer reason explanations when outcomes are controllable, and difficult actions are seen as less controllable (McClure, Densley, Liu, & Allen, 2001). …”