Close-call counterfactuals and belief-system defenses: I was not almost wrong but I was almost right

Abstract

Drawing on samples of professional observers of world politics, this article explores the interrelations among cognitive style, theoretical outlook, and reactions to close-call counterfactuals. Study 1 demonstrated that experts (especially high scorers on a composite measure of need for closure and simplicity) rejected close-call counterfactuals that redirected history when these counterfactuals undermined a preferred framework for understanding the past (the “I-was-not-almost-wrong” defense). Study 2 demonstrated that experts (especially high scorers on need for closure and simplicity) embraced close-call counterfactuals that redirected history when these counterfactuals protected conditional forecasts from refutation (the predicted outcome nearly occurred—so “I was almost right”). The article concludes by considering the radically different normative value spins that can be placed on willingness to entertain close-call counterfactuals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)