Imagine Before You Decide: Episodic Simulation Increases the Likelihood of Choosing the Simulated Option

Episodic simulation—the act of projecting oneself into the future—affects people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Across six studies, we tested the possibility that simulation affects decisions by making people more likely to choose options they simulate. Study 1 first established a correlation between how much people naturally simulated an option for an upcoming personal decision over 1 week and the likelihood that they would choose that option. Studies 2a and 2b demonstrated that simulation caused a small but significant increase in the likelihood a person would choose the simulated option for their personal decision relative to a nonsimulated option. Finally, Studies 3, 4a, and 4b revealed that simulation shapes decisions in controlled laboratory experiments wherein options were matched on initial preference. This work suggests that episodic simulation may contribute to a feedback loop, reinforcing preferences by making people more likely to choose options they simulate. General Audience Summary People mentally project themselves into the imagined future, preliving events that might or might not actually happen. Such future thinking comprises a good portion of people’s everyday, or naturally occurring, thoughts. Can mentally simulating imagined futures change the actual future, or do these simulations merely pass time until the actual future arrives? These studies were designed to test whether people who simulate an option are more likely to choose that option. First, we surveyed adults about their upcoming personal decisions. When we followed up 1 week later, participants were more likely to choose the option(s) they naturally simulated more. What if people were directed to imagine choosing a particular option rather than letting simulation play out naturally? Would choice still favor the simulated option(s)? In our next studies, people imagined experiencing one option before choosing between two options. Simulation led people to choose the imagined option more than the unimagined one. This was the case for multiple decision types: adults’ hypothetical personal decisions, college students’ actual snack decisions, and adults’ actual online video decisions. If simulation has the power to change the choices people make in the real world, policymakers and practitioners could direct people to simulate—and ultimately choose—“better” futures. Psychotherapists already use imagery-based methods with clients to help them access past memories and process current emotions; our studies suggest that imagining a possible future could be an effective technique for psychotherapists to help clients make decisions. One caveat is that imagining negative options could still lead people to choose those options. Practitioners and policymakers should be aware of how their own future simulations could polarize their decisions toward one option. It is still unclear whether simulating multiple options or imagining other people’s futures affects decision making, which is especially relevant for policymaking contexts.