Side effects may include: Consequence neglect in generating solutions

TL;DR

People often overlook negative side effects of their solutions because they focus too much on the main goal.

Contribution

Introduces 'consequence neglect' as a cognitive bias where downstream effects are ignored during problem solving.

Findings

Individuals rate strategies more negatively when prompted to consider both positive and negative consequences.

Negative outcomes are not naturally weighted unless attention is explicitly drawn to them.

Consequence neglect has implications for decision-making in policy and business.

Abstract

Strategies designed to address specific problems often give rise to unintended, negative consequences that, while foreseeable, are overlooked during strategy formulation and evaluation. We propose that this oversight is not due to a lack of knowledge but rather a cognitive bias rooted in focalism—the tendency to focus narrowly on the primary objective, ignoring other relevant factors, such as potential consequences. We introduce the concept of consequence neglect, where problem solvers fail to generate or consider downstream effects of their solutions because these consequences are not central to the proximal goal. Across four studies, we provide evidence supporting this phenomenon. Specifically, we find that individuals rate strategies more negatively after being prompted to generate both positive and negative consequences, suggesting that negative outcomes are not naturally weighted unless attention is explicitly drawn to them. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of consequence neglect for policymaking, business, and more general problem solving, and offer directions for future research.

Figures