References and Further Reading

This page sets out some of the theories and ideas that sit around the Consequence Horizon Model. These books and papers do not describe the model itself, but they help explain the wider behavioural landscape. The model fits in alongside them and focuses on the specific point where behaviour changes once a consequence becomes real. These notes are here for context rather than formality.
 

Prospect Theory (Kahneman and Tversky)
 

Prospect Theory showed that people feel losses more strongly than gains. It also explains why people behave in ways that do not match the textbook “rational actor”. This theory helps explain part of the drift before the Consequence Horizon, because people often avoid action if they think it will expose them to a loss. What it does not set out is the point where people finally act. That is where the Consequence Horizon sits.
 

Hyperbolic Discounting (Ainslie and others)
 

Hyperbolic Discounting explains why people prefer rewards now rather than later. It is a useful way of understanding short-term thinking, especially in money, health and habits. It helps explain why people delay and why they undervalue future consequences. What it does not explain is the sudden behavioural shift that happens when the future becomes “now”. That is the focus of this model.
 

Time Preference Theory
 

Time Preference Theory deals with how people value the present compared to the future. It underpins a lot of real-world behaviour, especially in finance. It helps explain why people put things off. Again, what it does not define is the behavioural line people cross when the consequence becomes immediate. That is where the Consequence Horizon applies.
 

Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC scale)
 

This idea looks at how much a person thinks about the long-term impact of their actions. People with low future orientation tend to drift for longer. People with high future orientation reach their horizon earlier. The Consequence Horizon Model links these traits to actual behaviour rather than self-reported intention.
 

Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger)
 

Cognitive Dissonance explains the mental discomfort people feel when holding two conflicting ideas. It is useful for understanding the “story building” that happens before the horizon. People create narratives to avoid facing the consequence. The model builds on this by highlighting when that narrative collapses.
 

Motivated Reasoning (Kunda)
 

Motivated Reasoning explains why people interpret information in a way that protects their preferred view of themselves. This shows up clearly in the drift zone, where people avoid information that would force action. The Consequence Horizon Model uses this to explain why people often do not act until the consequence breaks through that filter.
 

Normalisation of Deviance (Vaughan)
 

Normalisation of Deviance explains how organisations get used to risk over time. Behaviour that was once seen as dangerous becomes normal simply because nothing bad happened yet. This fits closely with the build-up that happens before the horizon is reached. The Consequence Horizon Model applies the same idea to individuals as well as organisations.
 

Behavioural Finance (Thaler, Ariely and others)
 

Behavioural Finance covers the common errors people make when investing or managing money. Loss aversion, overconfidence and status quo bias all contribute to drift. These theories explain the “why”, but not the moment where people finally act. The horizon model fills that gap.
 

Human Error and Drift in Organisations (Reason, Weick and Sutcliffe)
 

These works explain how drift, complacency and small missed signals build up inside organisations. They help frame the systemic side of risk. The Consequence Horizon Model connects this to personal and organisational behaviour by marking the point where drift ends and action starts.
 

Where the Consequence Horizon Model fits
 

All of the theories above help explain how and why people make poor decisions. They explain loss aversion, short-term thinking, denial, avoidance and drift. What none of them define is the point where behaviour flips from drift to action. They describe the background. The Consequence Horizon Model focuses on the line in the middle.
 

It looks at:
 

• The distance to the consequence

• The behaviour before it is reached

• The shift when the consequence becomes real

• The reset that follows
   

It is a practical model that matches what you see in real situations. It is not a replacement for the theories above. It sits alongside them and helps explain the moment where people stop drifting and start doing something about the situation.
 

If you want to explore any of the areas mentioned here, all of these books and papers are widely available. If you would like to share insights or discuss the model, feel free to get in touch.
 

M Sheldon