Construction and Validation of an Anticipatory Thinking Assessment

Abstract

Anticipatory thinking is a critical cognitive skill for successfully navigating complex, ambiguous systems in which individuals must analyze system states, anticipate outcomes, and forecast future events. For example, in military planning, intelligence analysis, business, medicine, and social services, individuals must use information to identify warnings, anticipate a spectrum of possible outcomes, and forecast likely futures in order to avoid tactical and strategic surprise. Existing methods for examining anticipatory thinking skill have relied upon task-specific behavioral measures or are resource-intensive, both of which are challenging to scale. Given the increasing importance of anticipatory thinking in many domains, developing a generic assessment of this skill and identifying the underlying cognitive mechanisms supporting it are paramount. The work reported here focuses on the development and validation of the anticipatory thinking assessment (ANTA) for measuring the divergent generative process of anticipatory thinking. Two-hundred and ten participants completed the ANTA, which required them to anticipate possible risks, opportunities, trends, or other uncertainties associated with a focal topic. Responses to the anticipatory thinking and divergent thinking tasks were rated by trained raters on a five-point scale according to the uniqueness, specificity, and remoteness of responses. Results supported the ANTA's construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. We also explored the relationship between the ANTA scores and certain psychological traits and cognitive measures (need for cognition, need for closure, and mindfulness). Our findings suggest that the ANTA is a psychometrically valid instrument that may help researchers investigate anticipatory thinking in new contexts.

An economic decision-making model of anticipated surprise with dynamic expectation

“…An increase in utility with branching can only be achieved by introducing additional 'anticipatory discounting' parameters that mitigate the impact of uncertainty in early anticipation stages. However, determining these anticipatory discounting parameters for each branch is challenging, since mental anticipation of events may not follow their chronological order (Geden et al, 2019).…”

“…On the other hand, the basis of our model, mental sequential anticipation, encompasses more than that. For instance, these sequences may not reflect events in chronological order (Geden et al, 2019). Moreover, when facing a complex decision, people, rather than considering all possible outcomes simultaneously, may break down the problem into modules and consider the said modules individually and sequentially (Anderson et al, 2011;Doya, Samejima, Katagiri, & Kawato, 2002;Kurby & Zacks, 2008), often based on certain hierarchical structures (Phillips, Morris, & Cushman, 2019).…”

The anticipatory paradigm

“…In contrast to this view of AT, Geden (Geden et al. 2019) defines AT as deliberate and methodical. These contrasting approaches align with Kahneman's dual process System 1 and System 2 thinking (Kahneman 2011).…”

“…Backcasting (Geden et al. 2019) is another SAT and begins by identifying a future event or scenario of interest. Working backwards in time from the future event, additional events are added and connected together to form chains of events that link the future event in question to the present.…”

“…Anticipatory thinking-deliberate exploration and analysis of relevant alternative system states (Geden et al 2019)-drives our ability to manage risk. We use it in everyday life, from bringing an umbrella when it might rain and deciding on insurance premiums, to specialized high-risk scenarios like operating rooms (Rosness et al 2016).…”