The Psychology of Thinking about the

Future Gabriele Oettingen

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-psychology-of-thinking-about-the-future-gabriele-
oettingen/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Thinking About Oneself The Place and Value of

Reflection in Philosophy and Psychology Waldomiro J.
Silva-Filho

https://textbookfull.com/product/thinking-about-oneself-the-
place-and-value-of-reflection-in-philosophy-and-psychology-
waldomiro-j-silva-filho/

Thinking about the emotions : a philosophical history

1st Edition Cohen

https://textbookfull.com/product/thinking-about-the-emotions-a-
philosophical-history-1st-edition-cohen/

What We Talk About When We Talk About Books The History

and Future of Reading Leah Price

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-
about-books-the-history-and-future-of-reading-leah-price/

Thinking about Publishing? On Seeking Patient Consent

Christopher Clulow

https://textbookfull.com/product/thinking-about-publishing-on-
seeking-patient-consent-christopher-clulow/
The Power of Critical Thinking: Effective Reasoning
about Ordinary and Extraordinary Claims (6th Ed.) 6th
Edition Lewis Vaughn

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-power-of-critical-thinking-
effective-reasoning-about-ordinary-and-extraordinary-claims-6th-
ed-6th-edition-lewis-vaughn/

Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About

Human Nature Randy J. Larsen

https://textbookfull.com/product/personality-psychology-domains-
of-knowledge-about-human-nature-randy-j-larsen/

Interdisciplinary Teaching About Earth and the

Environment for a Sustainable Future David C. Gosselin

https://textbookfull.com/product/interdisciplinary-teaching-
about-earth-and-the-environment-for-a-sustainable-future-david-c-
gosselin/

Thinking Space Promoting Thinking about Race Culture

and Diversity in Psychotherapy and Beyond 1st Edition
Frank Lowe

https://textbookfull.com/product/thinking-space-promoting-
thinking-about-race-culture-and-diversity-in-psychotherapy-and-
beyond-1st-edition-frank-lowe/

Critical Thinking in Psychology 2nd Edition Robert J.

Sternberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/critical-thinking-in-
psychology-2nd-edition-robert-j-sternberg/
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THINKING
ABOUT THE FUTURE
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE

EDITED BY

Gabriele Oettingen
A. Timur Sevincer
Peter M. Gollwitzer

THE GUILFORD PRESS

New York London
Copyright © 2018 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10001
www.guilford.com

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data is available from the publisher.

ISBN 978-1-4625-3441-8 (hardcover)

About the Editors

Gabriele Oettingen, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at New York University and the
University of Hamburg, Germany. Dr. Oettingen’s research differentiates among
various types of thinking about the future and examines their developmental and
situational origins, as well as their effects on the control of cognition, emotion,
and behavior. She has pointed out the perils of positive thinking and discovered
mental contrasting, an imagery-­based self-­regulation technique that, by drawing on
nonconscious processes, is effective for mastering one’s everyday life and long-term
development. Dr. Oettingen has published in journals of social, personality, devel-
opmental, educational, health, clinical, organizational, and consumer psychology,
as well as in neuropsychological and medical journals. Her work led to the creation
of effective and easy-to-apply behavior change interventions, and she is the author
or coauthor of several books in the area of behavior change.

A. Timur Sevincer, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the Institute of Psychology at

the University of Hamburg, Germany. Dr. Sevincer’s primary research interest is
motivation and self-­regulation, including, for instance, the spontaneous use of self-­
regulation strategies, their effect on physiological energization, the effect of alcohol
on motivation and self-­regulation, and motivational underpinnings of migration
toward cosmopolitan cities. Dr. Sevincer is the author or coauthor of more than 25
scholarly publications in such journals as Psychological Science, the Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, and Motivation and Emotion.

Peter M. Gollwitzer, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at New York University and

the University of Konstanz, Germany. Dr. Gollwitzer’s research examines how goals
and plans affect people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. He has developed various
models of action control: the theory of symbolic self-­completion (with Robert A.

v
vi About the Editors

Wicklund), the Rubicon model of action phases (with Heinz Heckhausen), the auto-­
motive model of automatic goal striving (with John A. Bargh), the mindset model
of action phases, and the theory of implementation intentions. In these theories,
the underlying mechanisms of effective action control are delineated, and respec-
tive moderators are distilled. Dr. Gollwitzer’s recent research focuses on develop-
ing easy-to-­conduct but powerful behavior change interventions. He has published
many influential journal articles, book chapters, and books.
Contributors

Francis T. Anderson, BA, BS, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,

Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
Cristina M. Atance, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Daniel M. Bartels, PhD, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business,
The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Roger Buehler, PhD, Department of Psychology, Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada
Adam Bulley, BA, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Queensland, Australia
Charles S. Carver, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Miami,
Coral Gables, Florida
Marina Chernikova, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland,
College Park, College Park, Maryland
James F. M. Cornwell, PhD, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership,
United States Military Academy, West Point, New York
Christina Crosby, BA, Department of Psychology, New York University,
New York, New York
Franziska Damm, MSc, Institute of Psychogerontology, Friedrich-­A lexander University
Erlangen–Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany
Maria K. DiBenedetto, PhD, Science Department, Bishop McGuinness High School,
Kernersville, North Carolina
Carol S. Dweck, PhD, Department of Psychology, Stanford University,
Stanford, California

vii
viii Contributors

Gilles O. Einstein, PhD, Department of Psychology, Furman University,

Greenville, South Carolina
Andrew J. Elliot, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester,
Rochester, New York
Kai Epstude, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Groningen,
Groningen, The Netherlands
Angelica Falkenstein, MA, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, California
Ayelet Fishbach, PhD, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business,
The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Michael Gilead, PhD, Department of Psychology, Ben-­Gurion University of the Negev,
Beer-Sheva, Israel
Paul W. Glimcher, PhD, Center for Neural Science, New York University,
New York, New York
Peter M. Gollwitzer, PhD, Department of Psychology, New York University, New York,
New York, and Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
Dale Griffin, PhD, UBC Sauder School of Business, The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Hal E. Hershfield, PhD, UCLA Anderson School of Management, University
of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
E. Tory Higgins, PhD, Department of Psychology, Columbia University,
New York, New York
Lucian Hölscher, PhD, Department of Modern History, Ruhr University Bochum,
Bochum, Germany
Jeremy P. Jamieson, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester,
Rochester, New York
Katarzyna Jasko, PhD, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
Evan M. Kleiman, PhD, Department of Psychology, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Anna B. Konova, PhD, Center for Neural Science, New York University,
New York, New York
Arie W. Kruglanski, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland,
College Park, College Park, Maryland
Frieder R. Lang, PhD, Institute of Psychogerontology, Friedrich-­A lexander University
Erlangen–Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany
Gary P. Latham, PhD, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Nira Liberman, PhD, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Edwin A. Locke, PhD, Department of Management and Organization, Robert H. Smith
School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland
Contributors ix

Andrew K. MacLeod, PhD, Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway,

University of London, Egham, United Kingdom
James E. Maddux, PhD, Department of Psychology, George Mason University,
Fairfax, Virginia
Mark A. McDaniel, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
Rory C. O’Connor, PhD, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow, United Kingdom
Gabriele Oettingen, PhD, Department of Psychology, New York University,
New York, New York
Jonathan Redshaw, PhD, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Queensland, Australia
Daniel L. Schacter, PhD, Department of Psychology, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Michael F. Scheier, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Dale H. Schunk, PhD, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
Greensboro, North Carolina
A. Timur Sevincer, PhD, Institute of Psychology, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany
Paschal Sheeran, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Oliver J. Sheldon, PhD, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers, The State University
of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
James A. Shepperd, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida
Sushmita Shrikanth, BA, BS, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois
Kate Sweeny, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, California
Karl K. Szpunar, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois
Yaacov Trope, PhD, Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York
Thomas L. Webb, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, United Kingdom
David S. Yeager, PhD, Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas
Marcel Zeelenberg, PhD, Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands
Contents

Introduction 1
Gabriele Oettingen, A. Timur Sevincer, and Peter M. Gollwitzer

SETTING THE STAGE

1. Future‑Thinking: A Historical Perspective 15

Lucian Hölscher

2. Future‑Thinking in Animals: Capacities and Limits 31

Jonathan Redshaw and Adam Bulley

3. Varieties of Future‑Thinking 52
Karl K. Szpunar, Sushmita Shrikanth, and Daniel L. Schacter

PART I. IMAGERY

4. Future‑Thinking in Young Children: 71

How Do We Measure It and How Can We Optimize It?
Cristina M. Atance

5. The Future Self 89

Hal E. Hershfield and Daniel M. Bartels

xi
xii Contents

6. Counterfactual Thinking 110

Kai Epstude

7. Fantasy about the Future as Friend and Foe 127

Gabriele Oettingen and A. Timur Sevincer

PART II. BELIEFS AND JUDGMENTS

8. Expectations in the Academic Domain 153

Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto

9. Self‑Efficacy 174
James E. Maddux and Evan M. Kleiman

10. Positive Future‑Thinking, Well‑Being, and Mental Health 199

Andrew K. MacLeod and Rory C. O’Connor

11. Generalized Optimism 214

Charles S. Carver and Michael F. Scheier

12. Fluctuations in Future Outlooks: Unrealistic Optimism 231

and Pessimism in Outcome Predictions
James A. Shepperd, Angelica Falkenstein, and Kate Sweeny

13. A Neuroeconomist’s Perspective on Thinking 250

about the Future
Anna B. Konova and Paul W. Glimcher

14. Anticipated Regret: A Prospective Emotion 276

about the Future Past
Marcel Zeelenberg

15. Thinking about the Future: A Construal Level 296

Theory Perspective
Michael Gilead, Yaacov Trope, and Nira Liberman

16. Perceiving Future Time across Adulthood 310

Frieder R. Lang and Franziska Damm
Contents xiii

PART III. GOALS AND PLANS

17. Planning Out Future Action, Affect, and Cognition 335

Peter M. Gollwitzer and Christina Crosby

18. Mindsets Change the Imagined and Actual Future 362

Carol S. Dweck and David S. Yeager

19. Long‑Range Thinking and Goal‑Directed Action 377

Edwin A. Locke

20. The Effect of Priming Goals on Organizational‑Related 392

Behavior: My Transition from Skeptic to Believer
Gary P. Latham

21. The Forward Rush: On Locomotors’ Future Focus 405

Arie W. Kruglanski, Marina Chernikova, and Katarzyna Jasko

22. Where I Ideally Want to Be versus Where I Ought to Be: 423

Regulatory Focus and the Future
James F. M. Cornwell and E. Tory Higgins

23. To Approach or to Avoid: Integrating the Biopsychosocial 440

Model of Challenge and Threat with Theories
from Affective Dynamics and Motivation Science
Jeremy P. Jamieson and Andrew J. Elliot

24. Anticipating and Overcoming Unethical Temptation 455

Oliver J. Sheldon and Ayelet Fishbach

25. The Road to Hell: An Overview of Research 473

on the Intention–Behavior Gap
Paschal Sheeran and Thomas L. Webb

26. Multiple Processes in Prospective Memory: 497

Exploring the Nature of Spontaneous Retrieval
Gilles O. Einstein, Mark A. McDaniel, and Francis T. Anderson

27. The Planning Fallacy 517

Roger Buehler and Dale Griffin

Index 539
Introduction

Gabriele Oettingen
A. Timur Sevincer
Peter M. Gollwitzer

T hinking about the future means thinking about experiences that one may or
may not have, about a world that may or may not develop, and about actions one
may or may not perform. Though we all mentally experience future events and
scenarios in our minds, the imagined future almost always looks different from
what will actually happen in real life. The future is uncertain, and thinking about
the future evokes feelings of uncertainty. Much of what we wish for the future will
never materialize. Is thinking about the future, then, a waste? All idle daydreams
and fantasies, hopes that will never be fulfilled, and threats feared in vain? But
if so, why would we still spend so much time in daily thinking about the future,
planning scenarios that will never occur, daydreaming about satisfactions that will
never happen, and making predictions that eventually turn out wrong? How much
of our time do we “waste” thinking about the future during our lives? People report
thinking about the future approximately once every 15 minutes, on average, when
asked to record all their future-­oriented thoughts during a day (D’Argembeau, Ren-
aud, & van der Linden, 2011). Compared with the past, people think about the
future about two to three times more often (Baumeister, Vohs, & Hofmann, 2015;
Gardner & Ascoli, 2015).
In this volume, we hope to show that thinking about the future is not necessar-
ily a waste of time. Quite the opposite, in fact: The ability to think about the future
is a gift to humankind. Given that the future is still yet to come, it is open to change
and malleable and therefore particularly relevant for behavior. This book is about
the psychology of thinking about the future. To that effect, it examines the ques-
tion of how thinking about the future influences our behavior, and thus ourselves,
our surroundings, and the world at large. In relation to behavior, thinking about
the future has three separate functions, each with its own mechanisms: (1) It allows
us to mentally explore the future, visualizing its endless possibilities; (2) it helps us

1
2 Introduction

predict the future based on extrapolations from the past; and (3) it helps us to focus
on specific objectives in the future, paving the way to reaching our goals.
Past research has largely focused on the second and third functions of think-
ing about the future: that is, making predictions, as manifested in our beliefs and
judgments about the future, and maintaining focus, as manifested in our goals
and plans. In comparison, the exploratory function of thinking about the future,
how we imagine and conceptualize the many possible futures yet to emerge in our
minds, has attracted less research attention.
Using these three functions of thinking about the future as a guide, we decided
to group the chapters into a setting-­the-stage section and three subsequent parts
corresponding with each functional aspect. The first part refers to imagery and the
exploratory aspects of thinking about the future; the second part refers to beliefs
and judgments and the predictive aspects of thinking about the future; and the
third part refers to goals and plans and the focusing aspects of thinking about the
future. Dividing the book in this way has thus resulted in an unequal number of
chapters in each section. Part II, on beliefs and judgments, and Part III, on goals
and plans, have 9 and 11 chapters, respectively, both more than double Part I, on
imagery, which has 4. We interpret this inequality as a signal of the large opportu-
nity and space for future research in studying the psychology of thinking about the
future, particularly its imagery and how it is conceptualized.
Next to providing an overview of research regarding the three functional aspects
of thinking about the future, another aim of this volume is to bring together sci-
entists from different disciplines who study future-­t hinking. To that end, we asked
scholars from different subdisciplines within psychology, including clinical, cogni-
tive, comparative, developmental, educational, health, organizational, and social
psychology, as well as neuroscientists, for contributions. We also invited scholars
from the fields of history and economics for their perspectives.
Scrutinizing the terminology used across the research literature on the psy-
chology of thinking about the future, we find a wide variety of seemingly unrelated
terms. Researchers investigate predictions, expectations, the sense of self-­efficacy,
beliefs of control, optimism–­pessimism, current concerns, goals, intentions, plans,
possible selves, future selves, mental time travel, episodic future thinking, mental
simulations, mind wandering, future fantasies, and many more. We hope to show
with this volume that although unconnected at first sight, these different and vary-
ing terms frequently overlap in their operationalizations and are used in ways that
often serve similar descriptive functions.
We seek to bridge research investigating similar phenomena, albeit using dif-
ferent terms and theoretical approaches. Communicating across the different lines
of research might open up new questions that would eventually lead to a reduction
of terms and to a deepening of our understanding of why, how, and with what
consequences people spend so much time “living” in the future. We hope this inter-
disciplinary approach will facilitate connecting phenomena that scientists have pre-
viously investigated in isolation and that it will link together innovative basic and
applied research that, ultimately, will help people to more effectively pursue and
fulfill their desired futures.
Readers will learn how the way people think about the future affects such
important variables as well-being, physical health, academic performance, job
Introduction 3

performance, ethical behavior, financial spending, prosocial behavior, and many

more everyday concerns and behaviors. They will also learn how thinking about
the future changes in childhood and across the lifespan. Finally, throughout the
volume, readers will learn about the most effective self-­regulation strategies that
help people to effectively pursue and realize their desired futures in many domains
(e.g., achievement, interpersonal, health).
This volume should be of interest to undergraduate and graduate students in
psychology, as the topic of future-­t hinking touches many of the most influential psy-
chological concepts (e.g., self-­efficacy, mindsets, approach–­avoidance motivation).
With its interdisciplinary approach, it should attract not only students and schol-
ars in psychology but also those in neighboring disciplines, such as neuroscience,
sociology, economics, medicine, and educational science. Finally, with its transla-
tional perspective on how to use future-­t hinking to foster effective self-­regulation,
it should be of help to lay people who wish to learn how to effectively pursue their
goals, make better decisions, and regulate their thoughts, emotions, and behavior.

Overview of the Chapters

Setting the Stage
We start the book by setting the stage. Three chapters elucidate how thinking about
the future can be approached from the perspectives of different fields. The first
contribution examines the topic from a historical perspective, showing that across
history people had different conceptions of the future. The second comes from
the perspective of comparative psychology, exploring future-­oriented cognition
and behavior in nonhuman species. Finally, the third contribution comes from a
neurocognitive perspective, providing a broad psychological classification of differ-
ent forms of thinking about the future derived from what we know about thinking
about the past.
In the first of the three opening chapters (Chapter 1), Lucian Hölscher gives
a historical account of how people conceived of the future throughout different
historical time periods. These “past futures” (i.e., the visions people of the past had
regarding what their futures would look like) shaped their subsequent decisions
and actions, regardless of whether these visions became true or not (and, indeed,
most did not). Hölscher argues that the concept of the future itself and the degree
to which people were oriented toward the future has changed over time. The future
as a temporal “space of time” is a relatively new invention, arising around the time
of the European Enlightenment. Many societies’ thinking about the future has con-
tinually cycled through phases of optimism and pessimism, but the current tech-
nological changes may be giving way to a new way of thinking, in which people
become less future-­oriented and more attuned to the present.
In Chapter 2, Jonathan Redshaw and Adam Bulley explore future-­oriented cog-
nition and behavior in nonhuman species. They propose that members of nonhu-
man species are capable of considerably more sophisticated future-­oriented behav-
ior than was once thought. For example, in the domain of navigation and route
planning, they are capable of delaying gratification, preparing for future threats,
acquiring and constructing tools to solve future problems, and acquiring, saving,
4 Introduction

and exchanging tokens for future rewards. Redshaw and Bulley suggest that ani-
mals have mental representations that go beyond the here and now, even though
they may not conceive of them as representations of the future. Accordingly, simul-
taneously preparing for multiple, mutually exclusive versions of the future and set-
ting reminder cues for successfully acting in prospective memory tasks is difficult
for members of nonhuman species. Thus the metacognitive ability to conceive of
future representations as future representations seems to be unique to humans,
allowing humans to reflect on their future-­t hinking limitations and to compensate
for them.
In the final chapter of the stage-­setting section (Chapter 3), Karl K. Szpunar,
Sushmita Shrikanth, and Daniel L. Schacter offer a neurocognitive perspective on
thinking about the future akin to thinking about the past (i.e., episodic vs. semantic
memory). They distinguish four modes of future thought—­simulation, prediction,
intention, and plans—and suggest that each of these modes can vary in the degree
to which the contents focus on autobiographical experiences or abstract states of
the world. The authors describe the methods that are typically employed in study-
ing the different forms of future thought and discuss neuropsychological underpin-
nings of some of these differentiated forms.

Part I: Imagery
After setting the stage, Part I of the book examines the first form of thinking about
the future outlined in this preface: imagery. We define future-­oriented imagery
as thoughts and images involving possible futures that occur in the stream of con-
sciousness and that are distinct from beliefs and judgments, especially in their rela-
tions to decision making and behavior (Oettingen & Mayer, 2002; Oettingen, 2012).
Related concepts are fantasies about the future, mental simulations, and mental
time travel into the future. We also consider thoughts about possible pasts—both
realized and unrealized—­t hat influence future-­t hinking and subsequent action.
The opening chapter of Part I (Chapter 4) discusses the development of
future thinking during childhood. Focusing on episodic future thinking, Cristina
M. Atance suggests that the capacity to mentally project into the future develops
between 3 and 5 years of age. Atance discusses different ways to assess future-­
thinking in children, such as asking children to select an object for future use and
analyzing children’s future-­event narratives. She then points out similarities and
differences between thinking about past episodes (mentally reexperiencing events)
and thinking about future episodes. Atance also reports research exploring how
future-­thinking is affected by younger and older children’s executive functions as
assessed by the discounting of delayed rewards and prospective memory perfor-
mance (i.e., forgetting to act on one’s behavioral intentions). In closing, she suggests
various ways to improve children’s future-­oriented reasoning, such as letting them
experience the consequences of acting versus not acting while keeping the future in
mind or encouraging them to take the perspective of another person.
In Chapter 5, Hal E. Hershfield and Daniel M. Bartels explore how thoughts
about one’s future self can affect present decision making, as many decisions involve
making tradeoffs between the present and the future (i.e., intertemporal tradeoffs).
In doing so, Hershfield and Bartels describe three theoretical perspectives on the
Introduction 5

future self: the future self as another person, continuity between selves, and failure
to imagine the future consequences of one’s actions. They then discuss the implica-
tions of these perspectives for decisions on behalf of the future self in various life
domains such as finances, health, and ethical decision making. In closing, Hersh-
field and Bartels discuss possible interventions that might help people change their
thinking about their future selves, connecting them more to their present incarna-
tions, and thus foster more careful decision making involving the future.
In Chapter 6, Kai Epstude outlines the consequences of counterfactual
thinking for both thinking about the future and future actions. Counterfactual
thoughts are reflections about how events in the past could have turned out differ-
ently. Epstude presents a dual-­pathway model that differentiates two mechanisms
by which counterfactuals affect behavior: the content-­specific pathway and the
content-­neutral pathway. Whereas the content-­specific pathway refers to focusing
on the specific problem at hand, the content-­neutral pathway refers to broader
consequences for information processing and general motivation. He argues that
counterfactual thoughts represent a bridge between past possibilities and future
opportunities. By simulating alternative ways in which past situations could have
developed differently, counterfactuals help people to prepare for similar situations
in the future. Epstude also discusses how counterfactuals relate to different forms
of future-­oriented cognition (e.g., prefactual thoughts, fantasizing).
In Chapter 7, Gabriele Oettingen and A. Timur Sevincer argue that positive
fantasies about desired future events facilitate the mental exploration of future
possibilities but are a clear hindrance when it comes to reaching that desired future
and fulfilling our wishes. Experimental evidence shows that such positive thoughts
and images make people feel accomplished but sap their energy. Because positive
future fantasies reflect people’s needs, it is important to enrich people with the
energy required to fulfill those fantasies. Oettingen and Sevincer describe Fantasy
Realization Theory (FRT) and the principles and mechanisms behind mental con-
trasting, a research-­backed self-­regulation strategy based on FRT. Mental contrast-
ing which asks people to juxtapose their future fantasies with potential obstacles of
reality has proven to foster behavior change and constructive action. The chapter
ends with a description of the research and interventions involving mental contrast-
ing, as well as efforts to disseminate mental contrasting as an easy-to-use and effec-
tive everyday self-­regulation tool.

Part II: Beliefs and Judgments

Part II of the book focuses on the second form of future thought differentiated
in this preface: beliefs and judgments. Future-­oriented beliefs and judgments are
subjective estimates of the likelihood with which certain future events will occur
or not (Bandura, 1977; Mischel, 1973). Examples of such beliefs and judgments are
expectations about the occurrence of certain future outcomes, self-­efficacy expec-
tations, general optimism and pessimism, estimates of the expected value of future
outcomes, and emotions one expects to feel in the future.
The first two chapters in Part II focus on various types of expectations. In Chap-
ter 8, Dale H. Schunk and Maria K. DiBenedetto discuss the role of expectations
in the academic domain. They differentiate various types of expectations relevant
6 Introduction

in academic settings (self-­efficacy expectations, outcome expectations, and expec-

tations of success) and review research suggesting that high expectations of learn-
ing and accomplishment consistently benefit learning, motivation, self-­regulation,
and academic achievement. They also describe interventions that successfully raise
students’ expectations and in this way foster academic performance. In sum, this
chapter highlights the important role that students’ expectations of learning and
accomplishment play in their academic development.
In Chapter 9, James E. Maddux and Evan M. Kleiman focus on self-­efficacy
expectations and their role in physical and psychological health. Self-­ efficacy
expectations are people’s beliefs about whether they can do what is necessary to
achieve desired future outcomes and prevent undesirable ones. Maddux and Klei-
man explain how self-­efficacy expectations differ from related constructs, how
they are assessed, and how they develop and change over life. The authors also
outline the research establishing how high self-­efficacy expectations help people
achieve desired outcomes in the domains of physical health and mental well-being
via increased exercising, dieting, managing stress, and smoking cessation.
The importance of future-­t hinking for mental health is the subject of Chapter
10. Andrew K. MacLeod and Rory C. O’Connor distinguish between positive and
negative expectations about the future. They show that people with depression, and
especially those who are suicidal, hold fewer positive expectations but not necessar-
ily more negative expectations about their future than people without depression.
MacLeod and O’Connor also suggest that people with depression and those who
are suicidal have difficulties disengaging from unattainable goals and engaging
with new goals. This chapter underlines how important it is for well-being to let go
from overly aspirational goals and commit to goals that are more feasible.
The topic of the next two chapters is optimism and pessimism. Optimism has
been defined as the expectation that things will work out well, and pessimism as
the expectation that things will work out badly. Charles S. Carver and Michael F.
Scheier take a closer look at generalized optimism as a personal attribute or trait
(Chapter 11). They argue that dispositional optimism has both genetic and environ-
mental origins and that it is relatively stable over time. They further suggest that
optimism is a social resource because optimists are good social partners. Optimists
also have more positive emotional lives because they effectively cope with adversity.
Finally, optimism is related to better physical health because optimists exert more
effort to maintain their health and because they show better emotional well-being.
Finally, Carver and Scheier discuss the question of whether optimism may also have
some drawbacks (e.g., when it comes to disengaging from a failing course of action).
Chapter 12 follows up on optimism from a different angle. James A. Shepperd,
Angelica Falkenstein, and Kate Sweeny investigate unrealistic optimism, defined as
people’s tendency to expect that their futures will be better than those of similar
others and better than the future suggested by objective indicators. The authors
propose that unrealistic optimism originates from desires and motivations but also
from biases in information processing. Unrealistic optimism is not observed when
subjective feelings of control over undesirable outcomes are low and when peo-
ple have prior experience with these undesirable outcomes. People also abandon
their unrealistic optimism in favor of more realistic or even pessimistic predictions
Introduction 7

when the future moves closer. This shifting away from optimism arises when people
acquire new information or are motivated to avoid disappointment in case of fail-
ure and when the predicted outcomes are rare, serious, and personally relevant.
The next three chapters deal with decision making. Chapter 13 examines inter-
temporal decision making (i.e., decisions that involve tradeoffs between present
and future outcomes) from a neuroeconomic perspective. Anna B. Konova and
Paul W. Glimcher first provide a historical account of economic theories in deci-
sion making and discuss experimental methods commonly used in neuroeconom-
ics. They then elaborate on delay discounting, the observation that people value
positive outcomes less the longer they have to wait for them. The authors present
research on neurobiological correlates of delay discounting and discuss whether
the phenomenon stems from a lack of self-­control and whether a unified-­system or
a dual-­system approach is best at explaining the phenomenon of delay discounting.
Finally, the authors address the relevance of delay discounting in understanding
psychopathologies of choice (e.g., drug addiction).
In Chapter 14, Marcel Zeelenberg explores how people’s anticipated emotional
responses to selected and rejected choice options influence their decision mak-
ing. He focuses on anticipated regret, the emotion that decision makers feel when
they think about how their choices could go awry. Zeelenberg reviews economic
and psychological theories on anticipated regret, and he reports research showing
that anticipated regret fosters strong intentions and intention–­behavior relation-
ships. He also discusses whether anticipated regret is an emotion or simply a belief
about a future emotion, and he argues that the experience of anticipated regret is
qualitatively distinct from retrospective regret. Zeelenberg closes by offering vari-
ous empirically tested mental strategies that people can use to regulate anticipated
regret when making decisions.
In Chapter 15, Michael Gilead, Yaacov Trope, and Nira Liberman argue that
the human capacity to imagine future scenarios goes hand in hand with the capac-
ity for abstract thought. They discuss the cognitive and neural underpinnings of
mental time travel and abstract thought based on construal level theory and point
to similar processes involved in mental time travel and abstract thought. In addi-
tion, they discuss research demonstrating that the more temporally distant events
are, the more abstract they are construed mentally. In closing, the authors outline
the consequences of increased temporal distance for judgment and decision mak-
ing in the domains of financial investments, altruistic behavior, and negotiations.
In the closing chapter of Part II (Chapter 16), Frieder R. Lang and Franziska
Damm examine how people’s future-­t hinking and their perspectives on time change
during adulthood. Lang and Damm review research showing that, as adults age
and their experience of the future becomes more limited, their perception of the
passage of time accelerates, and they anticipate more negative outcomes in their
expectations of the future (losses rather than gains). Lang and Damm propose that
the age-­related changes in future-­time perspective may promote selection, optimi-
zation, and compensation processes that facilitate adaptive ways of dealing with the
undesirable and burdening aspects of the perceived future time. Adults may thus
flexibly and differentially respond to perceived challenges and risks of future time,
as well as to the threats associated with the finitude of life.
8 Introduction

Part III: Goals and Plans

Part III of the book addresses the third form of future thought: goals and plans.
Goals are mental representations of desired future outcomes that imply a com-
mitment to realizing these outcomes. Plans, on the other hand, are mental repre-
sentations of the steps conducive to attaining a goal; they imply a commitment to
strive for the respective goal in a certain, prespecified way (Gollwitzer & Moskowitz,
1996; Oettingen & Gollwitzer, 2001).
In the first chapter of Part III (Chapter 17), Peter M. Gollwitzer and Christina
Crosby present research on planning out in advance how one wants to act, feel, and
think in a critical future situation (opportunity, hindrance) so that one’s goals can
be attained. Specifically, the chapter scrutinizes if–then plans (also referred to as
implementation intentions). These types of plans specify a critical situation in the if
part and the intended response in the then part. The chapter begins by examining
the question of why such simple plans are so effective in triggering future behav-
ioral, affective, and cognitive responses. It then turns to highlighting studies dem-
onstrating that if–then planning is effective in guiding all kinds of future actions,
feelings, and cognitions in people. Finally, Gollwitzer and Crosby discuss potential
moderators of if–then planning effects, as well as potential costs of using if–then
plans in guiding one’s future behavior, feelings, and cognition.
In Chapter 18, Carol S. Dweck and David S. Yeager highlight the importance
of different mindsets for tackling future challenges. People with a growth mindset
view their abilities as malleable and tend to set learning goals aimed at improving
their abilities. People with a fixed mindset, in contrast, view their abilities as stable
and tend to set performance goals aimed at getting a positive evaluation of their
abilities. People with a fixed mindset tend to see negative feedback as due to their
lack of relevant ability rather than lack of effort. They therefore exhibit less effort
and persistence in pursuing intellectual and social goals than people with a growth
mindset. Dweck and Yeager present various interventions geared toward promot-
ing a growth mindset. It is suggested that creating growth mindsets with respect to
intelligence, personality, and interpersonal relations allows people to see beyond a
problematic present and begin to work toward a more promising future.
In Chapter 19, Edwin A. Locke examines why it can be difficult for people
to think long range about the future even though doing so is important for many
aspects of living a meaningful daily life. First, he gives a brief overview of goal-­
setting theory and the expansive research it has spawned since it was first intro-
duced by Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham in 1990. He then identifies a mul-
titude of techniques that can help promote engagement in long-range thinking,
illustrating each with case examples. Strategies include tying short-term goals to
long-term goals, obtaining support and guidance from others, writing about one’s
goals, seeking feedback and tracking progress, identifying role models, evaluating
one’s pleasures in terms of long-term benefits, and introspecting about one’s emo-
tions, priorities, and moral values.
From the domain of organizational and industrial psychology, Gary P. Latham,
in Chapter 20, begins by describing goal-­setting theory, which he developed with
Edwin A. Locke, before moving on to discuss the possibility of activating goals
outside of people’s awareness (i.e., goal priming) in organizational and industrial
Introduction 9

contexts. He describes research showing that primed goals can produce reliable
effects on organizationally relevant outcome variables similar to those of con-
sciously set goals. He also reports findings that primed learning goals produced the
same differential behavioral consequences as consciously set learning goals when
each are evaluated against respective performance goals. Moreover, conscious and
primed goals geared for fairness have been found to have additive effects on coun-
teracting self-­serving tendencies that typically arise during negotiations. Latham
closes by underlining the practical and theoretical significance of goal-­priming
research in organizational and industrial contexts.
In Chapter 21, Arie W. Kruglanski, Marina Chernikova, and Katarzyna Jasko
discuss regulatory mode theory. Locomotion regulatory mode is the aspect of self-­
regulation concerned with motion and progress from state to state, whereas assess-
ment regulatory mode is the aspect of self-­regulation linked to a critical evalua-
tion of goals and means. Given that locomotion is generally a forward-­oriented
movement, it is proposed that locomotors’ preoccupation with movement leads to
a greater future focus. A review of the literature indeed suggests that high locomo-
tors plan more for the future, focus less on the past, and more readily initiate and
maintain commitments toward desired futures. The authors further highlight that
a locomotion focus can be situationally induced and discuss benefits (e.g., faster
goal completion), as well as drawbacks, of a high locomotion focus (e.g., reduced
readiness to learn from the past).
James F. M. Cornwell and E. Tory Higgins, in Chapter 22, start out by presenting
regulatory focus theory, which distinguishes between two motivational orientations
referred to as promotion and prevention focus. Applying the insights from this the-
ory to thinking about the future, the authors reason that people with a strong pro-
motion focus should be concerned with improving their future prospects relative to
their status quo, whereas those with a strong prevention focus should be concerned
with preventing the future from deteriorating relative to status quo. Cornwell and
Higgins also discuss how a strong promotion focus versus a strong prevention focus,
in conjunction with one’s current relation to a given status quo, can lead people to
prefer different options (e.g., risky vs. less risky options) in their prospective decision
making. They explicate how promotion and prevention focus and the perception of
one’s current standing in relation to the status quo may affect risky financial invest-
ments and even the selection of presidential candidates as real-world case examples.
Chapter 23 focuses on how people appraise future performance situations.
Jeremy P. Jamieson and Andrew J. Elliot describe recent research on the biopsy-
chosocial (BPS) model of challenge and threat. According to the model, people
appraise performance situations as either challenging or threatening, depending
on whether their coping resources exceed situational demands or the situational
demands exceed their coping resources. Jamieson and Elliot integrate the BPS
model with three other approaches: the extended process model of emotion regula-
tion, implicit theories of personality, and the analysis of achievement goals. By inte-
grating these approaches, the authors aim to generate more accurate and process-­
focused predictions of a person’s future cognition, affect, and action.
How people anticipate unethical temptations and how they plan to resist them
is evaluated in Chapter 24. Oliver J. Sheldon and Ayelet Fishbach propose that
10 Introduction

people first identify an upcoming situation as an ethical dilemma that poses a

self-­control conflict and, second, plan to exercise self-­control to counteract that
temptation. Sheldon and Fishbach review situational factors involved in identifying
upcoming ethical dilemmas, including breadth of decision frame, either a narrow
or broad frame (i.e., the critical situation is seen as singular or as one of many
similar upcoming situations), psychological connectedness to the decision at hand
(i.e., the decision having more or less impact on other decisions to be made), and
the degree of self-­diagnosticity of the critical decision (i.e., indicating what kind of
person one is). They argue that advanced warning of temptations, coupled with
employing self-­regulation strategies, facilitates resisting an experienced temptation
and the urge to behave in an unethical manner. People who anticipate a future
temptation have a better chance of resisting it than people who confront a tempta-
tion in the present without preparation.
In Chapter 25, Paschal Sheeran and Thomas L. Webb review research on the
intention–­behavior gap. Research suggests that people translate their intentions to
carry out future behavior into actual behavior only to a small degree. This effect is
demonstrated in a range of studies including correlational studies, statistical simu-
lations, and experiments. Sheeran and Webb suggest moderators of the intention–­
behavior gap: actual and perceived control, habits and experience with the behav-
ior, the basis of the intention (e.g., feelings of moral obligation), and properties of
the respective intention (e.g., intention stability). The authors discuss what makes it
so hard for people to realize their intentions and address what kind of interventions
could potentially aid in the realization of intentions.
Prospective memory refers to remembering to perform future actions. In
Chapter 26, Gilles O. Einstein, Mark A. McDaniel, and Francis T. Anderson suggest
that people rely on multiple processes for prospective memory retrieval. Behav-
ioral and neuroscience research supports that prospective memory retrieval can be
accomplished through sustained monitoring processes, as well as through transient
spontaneous retrieval processes initiated by the processing of cues that have been
associated with the intention. Which process people rely on likely depends on the
circumstances. For example, people rely on spontaneous retrieval when remem-
bering to give a message to a friend and on monitoring processes when multiple
intentions have to be kept in mind in a demanding air traffic control setting. In
their chapter, Einstein, McDaniel, and Anderson focus on spontaneous retrieval
and suggest that it occurs without the intention to retrieve at the moment that a
relevant cue is processed.
The planning fallacy, the topic of Chapter 27, refers to people’s tendency to
underestimate the time it will take to complete a certain task, despite knowing that
similar tasks have taken longer than planned. Roger Buehler and Dale Griffin write
about the widely documented phenomenon of people underestimating completion
times. This underestimation can happen for reasons pertaining to focusing too nar-
rowly on plans for task completion and to the neglect of other information, such
as previous experience, competing priorities, and potential barriers. Buehler and
Griffin suggest that the planning fallacy extends to other domains beyond comple-
tion time predictions, including people’s predictions of how much money they will
spend in the future. In closing, they present interventions for reducing the plan-
ning fallacy: consideration of potential obstacles; task decomposition; consulting
Introduction 11

observers, as well as switching to an observer perspective; and engaging in back-

ward planning.

Acknowledgments

We thank Seymour Weingarten, Editor-­in-Chief, and Carolyn Graham, Editorial and Con-
tracts Administrator, at The Guilford Press for their excellent guidance from the outset of
the book project to its completion. Doris Mayer deserves special thanks for her support in
preparing the volume. We hope that The Psychology of Thinking about the Future will inspire
many future research collaborations between scientists from different fields and that a
better understanding of thinking about the future will help people lead constructive and
meaningful lives.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-­efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychologi-

cal Review, 84, 191–215.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Hofmann, W. (2015, February). What were you thinking?:
Past, present, and future in a random sample of everyday thoughts. In G. Oettingen &
A. T. Sevincer (Chairs), Spontaneous thoughts and images. Symposium conducted at the
16th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Long Beach,
CA.
D’Argembeau, A., Renaud, O., & Van der Linden, M. (2011). Frequency, characteristics,
and functions of future-­oriented thoughts in daily life. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25,
96–103.
Gardner, R. S., & Ascoli, G. A. (2015). The natural frequency of human prospective memory
increases with age. Psychology and Aging, 30, 209–219.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cognition. In E.
T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles.
(pp. 361–399) New York: Guilford Press.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality.
Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.
Oettingen, G. (2012). Future thought and behaviour change. European Review of Social Psy-
chology, 23, 1–63.
Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Goal setting and goal striving. In A. Tesser & N.
Schwarz (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology (pp. 329–347). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future:
Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1198–1212.
SETTING THE STAGE
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 his four subordinate officers. During the trial and after
there were many demonstrations of popular sympathy with the
prisoners. Meantime, in April, the Transvaal authorities had
brought the imprisoned leaders of the Johannesburg "reform
committee" to trial at Pretoria on charges of treason and had
convicted them all. Four, namely, Colonel Rhodes (brother of
Cecil), Lionel Phillips, George Farrar, and John Hays Hammond
(an American), were sentenced to death; the remainder to a
payment of heavy fines. The death sentences were soon
commuted, first to imprisonment for fifteen years, and
subsequently to fines of $125,000 on each of four prisoners.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1896 (January).

Message of the German Emperor to President Kruger,
relative to the Jameson Raid.

The critical situation of affairs produced by the Jameson raid

was dangerously complicated at the beginning by the
publication of the following telegram, sent to President
Kruger, on the 3d of January, by the German Emperor: "I
express my sincere congratulations that, supported by your
people and without appealing for help to friendly powers, you
have succeeded by your own energetic action against the armed
bands which invaded your country as disturbers of the peace,
and have thus been enabled to restore peace, and safeguard the
independence of your country against attacks from without."
President Kruger replied: "I testify to Your Majesty my very
deep and heartfelt thanks for Your Majesty's sincere
congratulations. With God's help we hope to do everything
further that is possible for the holding of our dearly bought
independence and the stability of our beloved republic." This
kindled a white heat of indignation in England. It was
supposed to signify a disposition on the part of the German
Emperor to recognize the absolute independence which the South
African Republic claimed, and to threaten interference as
between Great Britain and the Boers. A powerful "flying
squadron" was instantly put in commission, and several ships
 were ordered to Delagoa Bay. For some time the relations
between Great Britain and Germany were seriously strained; but
various influences gradually cooled the excited feeling in
England, though not a little distrust of German intentions has
remained.

SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1896 (January-April).

Urgency of the British Colonial Secretary for redress of
Uitlander grievances.
Invitation to President Kruger to visit England.
His requirement that Article IV. of the London Convention
shall be discussed.
Deadlock of the parties.

The complaints of the Uitlanders, effectually silenced for the

time being at Johannesburg by the vigorous action of the
Boers, were now taken up by the British Secretary of State for
the Colonies, Mr. Chamberlain, and pressed in strenuous
despatches to the High Commissioner in South Africa, Sir
Hercules Robinson. On the 4th of January, 1896, four days
after the surrender of Jameson and four days before the
insurgent Uitlanders at Johannesburg had laid down their arms,
a long despatch was cabled by Mr. Chamberlain to the High
Commissioner, instructing him to make "friendly
representations" to President Kruger on the subject of those
complaints. "I am aware," wrote the Colonial Secretary, "that
victory of Transvaal Government over Administrator of
Mashonaland may possibly find them not willing to make any
concessions. If this is the attitude they adopt, they will, in
my opinion, make a great mistake; for danger from which they
have just escaped was real, and one which, if the causes which
led up to it are not removed, may recur, although in a
different form. I have done everything in my power to undo and
to minimise the evil caused by late unwarrantable raid by
British subjects into the territory of the South African
Republic, and it is not likely that such action will be ever
repeated; but the state of things of which complaint has been
 made cannot continue forever. If those who are now a majority
of inhabitants of the Transvaal, but are excluded from all
participation in its government, were, of their own
initiative, and without any interference from without, to
attempt to reverse that state of things, they would, without
doubt, attract much sympathy from all civilised communities
who themselves live under a free Government, and I cannot
regard the present state of things in the South African
Republic as free from danger to the stability of its
institutions.
{467}
The Government of the South African Republic cannot be
indifferent to these considerations, and President of South
African Republic himself has on more than one occasion,
expressed his willingness to inquire into and to deal with
just reasons for discontent; and the Volksraad have now the
opportunity to show magnanimity in the hour of their success
and to settle all differences by moderate concessions. They
must fully admit the entire loyalty of yourself and of Her
Majesty's Government to the terms of London Convention, as
shown by their recent intervention, and they must recognise
that their authority in crisis through which they have passed
could not have been so promptly and effectively asserted
without that intervention. If they will recognise this by
making concessions in accordance with our friendly advice, no
one will be able to suggest that they are acting under
pressure, and their voluntary moderation will produce best
effect among all who are interested in well-being of the
Transvaal and in future of South Africa."

On the 13th of January the Colonial Secretary pursued the

subject in another despatch to Sir Hercules Robinson, as
follows: "Now that Her Majesty's Government have fulfilled
their obligations to the South African Republic, and have
engaged to bring the leaders in the recent invasion to trial,
they are anxious that the negotiations which are being
conducted by you should result in a permanent settlement by
which the possibility of further internal troubles will be
prevented. The majority of the population is composed of
Uitlanders, and their complete exclusion from any share in the
government of the country is an admitted grievance which is
publicly recognised as such by the friends of the Republic as
well as by the opinion of civilised Europe. There will always
be a danger of internal disturbance so long as this grievance
exists, and I desire that you will earnestly impress on
President Kruger the wisdom of making concessions in the
interests alike of the South African Republic and of South
Africa as a whole. There is a possibility that the President
might be induced to rely on the support of some foreign Power
in resisting the grant of reforms or in making demands upon
Her Majesty's Government; and in view of this I think it well
to inform you that Great Britain will resist at all costs the
interference of any foreign Power in the affairs of the South
African Republic. The suggestion that such interference was
contemplated by Germany was met in this country by an
unprecedented and unanimous outburst of public feeling. In
order to be prepared for all eventualities, it has been
thought desirable by Her Majesty's Government to commission a
Flying Squadron of powerful men-of-war, with twelve
torpedo-ships; and many other vessels are held in reserve. Her
Majesty's Government have no reason, at the present moment, to
anticipate any conflict of interest with foreign Powers; but I
think it right for you to know that Great Britain will not
tolerate any change in her relations with the Republic, and
that, while loyally respecting its internal independence,
subject to the Conventions, she will maintain her position as
the Paramount Power in South Africa, and especially the
provisions of Article IV. of the Convention of 1884. It is my
sincere hope that President Kruger, who has hitherto shown so
much wisdom in dealing with the situation, will now take the
opportunity afforded to him of making of his own free will
such reasonable concessions to the Uitlanders as will remove
the last excuse for disloyalty, and will establish the free
institutions of the Republic on a firm and lasting basis."
To this Sir Hercules replied with a remonstrance, saying:
"Your telegram 13 January No.1 only reached me last night
after I had left Pretoria. I could, if you consider it
desirable, communicate purport to President of South African
Republic by letter, but I myself think such action would be
inopportune. … Nearly all leading Johannesburg men are now in
gaol, charged with treason against the State, and it is
rumoured that Government has written evidence of a
long-standing and wide-spread conspiracy to seize Government
of country on the plea of denial of political privileges, and
to incorporate the country with that of British South Africa
Company. The truth of these reports will be tested in the
trials to take place shortly in the High Court, and meanwhile
to urge claim for extended political privileges for the very
men so charged would be ineffectual and impolitic. President
of South African Republic has already promised municipal
government to Johannesburg, and has stated in a Proclamation
that all grievances advanced in a constitutional manner will
be carefully considered and brought before the Volksraad
without loss of time; but until result of trials is known
nothing, of course, will now be done." Mr. Chamberlain saw
force in the High Commissioner's objections, and assented to a
momentary suspension of pressure on the Transvaal President,
but not for long. "I recognise," he telegraphed on the 15th,
"that the actual moment is not opportune for a settlement of
the Uitlanders' grievances, and that the position of the
President of the South African Republic may be an embarrassing
one, but I do not consider that the arrest of a few score
individuals out of a population of 70,000 or more, or the
supposed existence of a plot among that small minority, is a
reason for denying to the overwhelming majority of innocent
persons reforms which are just in themselves and expedient in
the interests of the Republic. Whatever may be said about the
conduct of a few individuals, nothing can be plainer than that
the sober and industrious majority refused to countenance any
resort to violence, and proved their readiness to obey the law
 and your authority. I hope, therefore, to hear at an early
date that you propose to resume the discussion with President
of South African Republic on lines laid down in my previous
telegrams. I do not see that the matter need wait until the
conclusion of the trial of the supposed plotters."

On the 28th of January the High Commissioner, under

instructions from London, addressed to President Kruger the
following invitation: "I am directed by Her Majesty's
Government to tender to your Honour a cordial invitation to
visit England, with a view to discussing with them all those
questions which relate to the security of the South African
Republic and the general welfare of South Africa. I am to add
that, although Her Majesty's Government cannot consent to
modify Article 4 of the London Convention [see above; A. D.
1884-1894], other matters are open to friendly discussion.
{468}
Her Majesty's Government hope that your Honour will come as
the guest of the British Government." While this invitation
was being considered, and before a reply to it had been made,
the British Colonial Secretary reopened his own discussion of
the questions at issue, February 4, in a despatch of great
length, reviewing the whole history of the relations of the
Uitlanders to the government of the South African Republic,
and of the recent occurrences which had been consequent upon
their discontent. It praised "the spirit of wisdom and
moderation" shown by President Kruger, who "kept within bounds
the natural exasperation of his burghers," and it gave
especial attention to a proclamation which President Kruger
had addressed to the inhabitants of Johannesburg, on the 10th
of January, in which he had said: "It is my intention to
submit a draft Law at the first ordinary session of the
Volksraad, whereby a Municipality with a Mayor at its head
will be appointed for Johannesburg, to whom the whole
municipal government of this town will be entrusted."

On this the Secretary made the following suggestions: "Basing

myself upon the expressed desire of President Kruger to grant
municipal government to Johannesburg, I suggest, for his
consideration, as one way of meeting the difficulty, that the
whole of the Rand district, from end to end, should be erected
into something more than a municipality as that word is
ordinarily understood; that, in fact, it should have a
modified local autonomy, with powers of legislation on purely
local questions, and subject to the veto of the President and
Executive Council; and that this power of legislation should
include the power of assessing and levying its own taxation,
subject to the payment to the Republican Government of an
annual tribute of an amount to be fixed at once and revised at
intervals, so as to meet the case of a diminution or increase
in the mining industry. As regards judicial matters in such a
scheme, the Rand, like the Eastern Provinces and the Kimberley
District of the Cape Colony, might have a superior court of
its own. It would, of course, be a feature of this scheme that
the autonomous body should have the control of its civil
police, its public education, its mine management, and all
other matters affecting its internal economy and well-being.
The central Government would be entitled to maintain all
reasonable safeguards against the fomenting of a revolutionary
movement, or the storage of arms for treasonable purposes
within the district. Those living in, and there enjoying a
share in the government of, the autonomous district, would
not, in my view, be entitled to a voice in the general
Legislature or the Central Executive, or the presidential
election. The burghers would thus be relieved of what is
evidently a haunting fear to many of them—although I believe
an unfounded one—that the first use which the enfranchised
newcomers would make of their privileges would be to upset the
republican form of government. Relieved of this apprehension,
I should suppose that there would not be many of them who
would refuse to deal with the grievances of the comparatively
few Uitlanders outside the Rand on those liberal principles
which characterized the earlier legislation of the Republic.
The President may rest assured that in making the above
suggestions I am only actuated by friendly feeling towards
himself and the South African Republic. They are not offered
in derogation of his authority, but as the sincere and
friendly contribution of Her Majesty's Government towards the
settlement of a question which continues to threaten the
tranquillity of the Republic and the welfare and progress of
the whole of South Africa. A proper settlement of the
questions at issue involves so many matters of detail which
could be more easily and satisfactorily settled by personal
conference, that I should be glad to have the opportunity of
discussing the subject with the President, if it suited his
convenience, and were agreeable to him, to come to this
country for the purpose. Should this be impracticable, I rely
upon you to make my views known to him and to carry on the
negotiations."

This despatch, as soon as it had been forwarded from the

Colonial Office, was published in the "London Gazette," so
that a telegraphed summary of its contents reached President
Kruger before it came to him officially,—which naturally added
something to the irritations existing at Pretoria. However,
the President, on the 8th of February, by telegram to the High
Commissioner, and more fully on the 25th by letter, responded
to the invitation to visit England. In his telegram he said:
"In order to give me the liberty to let the Honourable
Volksraad judge whether permission and power to act will be
given me to go out of the country, an understanding must, of
course, first be come to as to what points will he discussed
or not, so that I may lay those points before the Volksraad
for deliberation and resolution." In his letter he wrote:

"At the commencement, I wish to observe that the object of

this letter is to pave the way for a friendly discussion of
the matters herein mentioned, in order to arrive at a
satisfactory solution, and further that, although as yet I
desire no positive and direct assent to the desires expressed
herein, I would, nevertheless, to prevent a misunderstanding,
 desire to have an assurance that they will be taken into the
most mature consideration with the earnest endeavour and the
sincere desire to comply with my wishes. The desire to receive
this assurance will be respected by your Excellency and Her
Majesty's Government as reasonable, when I say that,
considering especially my advanced age and the unavoidable
delay, owing to my absence, in the transaction of matters
affecting the highest State interests, I would, with
difficulty, be able to make the sacrifice in going only to
discuss matters without arriving at the desired result, and it
is evident that if the assurance referred to by me cannot be
given by Her Majesty's Government, in all probability the
Honourable Volksraad would not grant its consent and
commission. … Although, as already said, the Government could
tolerate no interference in its internal relations and the
official discussion of affairs with the object of requiring
changes therein will have to be avoided, on the other hand I
wish it to be understood that private hints given by statesmen
of experience in the true interest of the country and its
independence will always be warmly appreciated by me, from
whatever side they may come.

{469}

"Going over to a summing up of the points which, in my

opinion, should be brought under discussion, I wish to mention
in the first place:—

1. The superseding of the Convention of London with the eye,

amongst others, on the violation of the territory of the South
African Republic: because in several respects it has already
virtually ceased to exist; because in other respects it has no
more cause for existence; because it is injurious to the
dignity of an independent Republic; because the very name and
the continual arguments on the question of suzerainty, which
since the conclusion of this Convention no longer exists, are
used as a pretext, especially by a libellous press, for
wilfully inciting both white and coloured people against the
lawful authority of the Republic; for intentionally bringing
about misunderstanding and false relations between England and
the Republic, whereby in this manner the interests of both
countries and of their citizens and subjects are prejudiced
and the peaceful development of the Republic is opposed. In
the discussion of the withdrawal of the Convention as a whole,
Article IV. should naturally not be kept back. I have reason
to believe that the British Government has come to the
decision to make no alteration in this on account of false
representations made to it and lying reports spread by the
press and otherwise with a certain object, to the effect that
the Government of the Republic has called in, or sought, the
protection of other Powers. While I thankfully acknowledge and
will ever acknowledge the sympathy of other Powers or their
subjects, and the conduct of the last named has, in the light
of the trials recently passed through, on the whole offered a
favourable contrast to that of British subjects, there is
nevertheless nothing further from my thoughts than to strive
for the protection of a foreign power, which I will never even
seek. Neither I nor the people of the Republic will tolerate an
interference with the internal relations from any power
whatever, and I am prepared, if the course proposed by me be
adopted, to give the necessary assurances for this, in order
that Her British Majesty's Government need have no fear that
Her interests in South Africa should be injured.

2. Further should be discussed the superseding of the

Convention by a treaty of peace, commerce and friendship, by
which the existing privileges of England in the dominion of
commerce and intercourse and the interests of British subjects
in the Republic will be satisfactorily guaranteed on the
footing of the most-favoured nation, and herein I would be
prepared to go to the utmost of what can reasonably be asked.

3. Then the necessary guarantees will have to be given against

a repetition of the violation of territory out of the
territory of the Chartered Company or the Cape Colony, and of
disturbing military operations and unlawful military or police
or even private movements on the borders of the Republic.

4. Further should be discussed the compensation for direct and

indirect injury to be given or caused to be given by England
for and by reason of the incursion that recently took place.
The reasons for this are evident and need no argument. The
amount to be demanded it is impossible as yet to determine,
but, if required, it can still be given before my departure to
England.

5. I would, although in the following respects I would not

insist beforehand on an assurance such as that intended with
regard to the above-mentioned points, nevertheless wish to
request the earnest consideration of a final settlement of the
Swaziland question, in this sense, that that country shall
henceforth become a part of the Republic. …

6. Further, I would very much like to have discussed the

revocation of the charter of the Chartered Company, which, if
this does not take place, will continue to be a threatening
danger to the quiet and peace of the Republic and thereby also
to the whole South Africa. I am of opinion that all the above
desires are fair and just. … I will be pleased to receive the
views of Her Majesty's Government on the points herein brought
forward, in order that I may be enabled to bring the matter
for decision before the Honourable Volksraad."

Mr. Chamberlain's reply to this communication was, in part, as

follows: "Her Majesty's Government regret that President has
given no definite reply to invitation to visit England which
was sent to him on 28th January. This invitation was the
result of private information conveyed to Her Majesty's
Government that the President was desirous of arranging with
them a settlement of all differences, and of placing on a
permanent and friendly basis the relations between the United
Kingdom and the South African Republic. Before forwarding the
invitation, Her Majesty's Government knew that his Honour was
in full possession of their opinion, that no arrangement can
be satisfactory or complete which does not include a fair
settlement of those grievances of the Uitlander population
which have been recognized by the general public opinion of
South Africa, and which have been the cause of discontent and
agitation in the past, and are likely—unless remedied—to lead
to further disturbances in future, Her Majesty's Government
also took care to satisfy themselves that the President had
been made aware that they were not prepared to modify in any
way the provisions of Article IV. of the Convention of 1884,
and this was again made clear in the formal invitation to
visit England. Under these circumstances, it was with great
surprise that Her Majesty's Government learnt from the
Despatch of the President of 25th February that his Honour
objected to discuss the question of the reforms asked for by
the Uitlanders, and that he desired to propose withdrawal of
Article IV. of the Convention, and Her Majesty's Government
regret that they were not informed of his Honour's views on
the subject at an earlier date, as they would not have felt
justified in inviting the President to encounter the fatigue
of a journey to this country if they had not been led to
believe that he was in agreement with them as to the general
object of such a visit.

"In their view, Her Majesty's Government were able to offer a

complete guarantee in the future to the South African Republic
against any attack upon its independence, either from within
any part of Her Majesty's dominions or from the territory of a
foreign Power. In return, they assumed that the President
would make known to them the measures which he proposed to
take to remedy the acknowledged grievances of the Uitlanders,
and to consider any suggestions which Her Majesty's Government
might wish to offer as to the adequacy of these measures for
the removal of all cause of internal disturbances. … Such a
discussion as they contemplate would not involve any
 acknowledgment on the part of the President of a right of
interference in the internal concerns of the Republic, but
would only at the most amount to a recognition of the friendly
interest of Her Majesty's Government in its security, and in
the general welfare of South Africa.
{470}
The President would be, of course, at liberty to accept or to
reject any advice that might be tendered to him by Her
Majesty's Government, but in the latter case the
responsibility for the result would naturally rest wholly with
him. Her Majesty's Government have already expressed a
willingness to give full consideration to any representations
which his Honour may wish to make on the other points named in
his letter, although some of them are matters wholly in
jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government. But unless the
President is satisfied with the explanations I have now given,
Her Majesty's Government are reluctantly obliged to come to
the conclusion that no good purpose can be served by the
proposed visit."

In return to this despatch, President Kruger, on 17th of

March, expressed his "deep disappointment" at its contents, by
reason of which, he said, "it is not possible for me to
proceed to convene a special session of the Volksraad at once"
for the purpose of action upon the invitation of the British
Government. Thereupon (April 27), the Colonial Secretary
cabled to the High Commissioner in South Africa: "Her
Majesty's Government have no alternative but to withdraw the
invitation, which it appears from the President's message was
given under a misapprehension of the facts." Thus the two
parties were at a deadlock.

Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1896,

C. 7933, pages 19-91; and C. 8063, pages 11-17.

SOUTH AFRICA: Rhodesia: A. D. 1896 (March-September).

Matabele revolt.
 Taking advantage of the confusion in affairs which followed
the Jameson raid, and its removal of part of the police force
from the country, the Matabele rose in revolt. The main
provocation of the rising appears to have been from severe
measures that were adopted for stamping out rinderpest in the
country. Many whites were killed in the regions of scattered
settlement, and Buluwayo and Gwelo, where considerable numbers
had taken refuge, were in much danger for a time. But prompt
and vigorous measures were taken by the colonial and imperial
authorities, as well as by the officers of the South Africa
Company. Troops were sent from Cape Colony, Natal, and
England, and Major-General Sir Frederick Carrington was
ordered from Gibraltar to take command. Cecil Rhodes hastened
to Salisbury on the first news of the outbreak and organized a
force of volunteers for the relief of the beleaguered towns. The
Transvaal government offered help. By June, when General
Carrington arrived, and Lord Grey had succeeded Dr. Jameson as
Administrator, the insurgent natives had been put on the
defensive and had nearly ceased their attacks. They were
driven into the Matoppo hills, where their position was
formidably strong. At length, in August, Mr. Rhodes opened
negotiations with some of the chiefs, and went, with three
companions, unarmed, into their stronghold. He there made an
agreement with them, which the British military authorities
and many of the Matabele warriors refused to be bound by. But
the revolt had been practically broken and soon came to an
end.

SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1896 (June).

Resignation of Mr. Rhodes.

On the 26th of June the resignations of Cecil J. Rhodes and

Mr. Beit from the Board of Directors of the British South
Africa Company, and of Mr. Rutherford Harris as its Secretary,
were accepted by the Board.
SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony: A. D. 1896 (July).
Investigation of the Jameson Raid.
Responsibility of Cecil J. Rhodes.

On the 17th of July a Select Committee of the Cape Colony

House of Assembly, appointed in the previous May "to inquire
into the circumstances, as affecting this colony, in connexion
with the preparations for and carrying out of the recent armed
inroad into the territory of the South African Republic," made
its report, rehearsing at length the facts ascertained, with
evidence in full, and submitting a number of "conclusions,"
among them the following: "Your Committee are of opinion that
no member of the then Colonial Government with the exception
of the then Prime Minister [Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes], had any
knowledge whatever or suspicion of the intention to send an
armed force across the border of the South African Republic. …
Your Committee is convinced that the stores and workshops of
the De Beers Consolidated Mines were for some time previous to
the inroad used for the storage and for the unlawful
exportation of arms destined for the South African Republic,
in connexion with this inroad, and also that 11 men were sent
from De Beers to Johannesburg, who were afterwards allowed to
resume their positions. The evidence is clear, and leaves no
room for doubt on this point. The local directors give an
emphatic denial to any guilty knowledge on their part, and
your Committee must acquit them of anything beyond negligence,
which, looking to the magnitude of the transactions and the
length of time over which they extended, must have been very
marked. It is not conceivable that such proceedings could have
been permitted without the knowledge and approval of the
Chairman and Life Governor, Mr. C. J. Rhodes. With regard to
the Chartered Company, your Committee find that the principal
officials in Cape Town either knew, or were in a position to
have known, the existence of this plot. Two at least of the
directors, Mr. Beit and the Right Honorable C. J. Rhodes,
were, together with the Administrator, Dr. Jameson, and Dr.
Harris, the South African Secretary of the Company, active as
 promoters and moving spirits throughout, and they were from
time to time kept informed of the preparations. … The whole
movement was largely financed and engineered from outside, and
in both cases certain directors and officials of the Chartered
Company of British South Africa were active throughout. As
regards the Right Honorable C. J. Rhodes, your Committee can
come to no other conclusion than that he was thoroughly
acquainted with the preparations that led to the inroad. That
in his capacity as controller of the three great joint-stock
companies, the British South Africa Company, the De Beers
Consolidated Mines, and the Gold Fields of South Africa, he
directed and controlled the combination which rendered such a
proceeding as the Jameson raid possible. … It would appear
that Mr. Rhodes did not direct or approve of Dr. Jameson's
entering the territory of the South African Republic at the
precise time when he did do so, but your Committee cannot find
that that fact relieves Mr. Rhodes from responsibility for the
unfortunate occurrences which took place. Even if Dr. Jameson
be primarily responsible for the last fatal step, Mr. Rhodes
cannot escape the responsibility of a movement which had been
arranged, with his concurrence, to take place at the precise
time it did, if circumstances had been favourable at
Johannesburg."

Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1897,

C. 8380, pages 7-9.

{471}

SOUTH AFRICA: British South Africa Company: A. D. 1896 (July).

Parliamentary movement to investigate its administration.

In the British House of Commons, on the 30th of July, Mr.

Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, made a
motion for the appointment of a select committee of fifteen to
conduct an inquiry into the administration of the British
South Africa Company, and the motion was adopted.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1896-1897 (May-April).
Continued controversies between the British Colonial
Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, and the Government of the
South African Republic.
Complaints and counter complaints.
Aliens Immigration Law, etc.

For a time after the abandonment of the proposed visit of

President Kruger to England, the older questions at issue
between Great Britain and the Transvaal fell into the
background; but new ones were constantly rising. Each party
watched the other with suspicious and critical eyes, sharply
questioning things that would hardly have been noticed in
ordinary times. The Boer authorities, on their side, were
naturally disturbed and made inquisitive by every movement of
troops or arms in the surrounding British territory, both of
which movements were being somewhat increased by the revolt of
the Matabeles. They were impatient, too, for some action on
the part of the British government against the chief authors
of the recent invasion,—the officials of the British South
Africa Company,—and against the Company itself. On the 11th of
May, 1896, the State Secretary of the Transvaal government
telegraphed to the British High Commissioner as follows: "The
newspapers of the last few days state that Her Majesty's
Government still continue to take the part of the Directors of
British South Africa Company, especially Mr. Rhodes. This
Government will not believe the accuracy of these reports, but
it is of opinion that the Chartered Company as administering
the Government up to now is a source of danger to whole of
South Africa. The inroad into this Republic was made by
officers, troops, and arms of that Chartered Company, and even
the explicit prohibition of Her Majesty's Government was
unable to restrain them, notwithstanding the Chartered Company
had taken upon itself the international obligations of Great
Britain. The behaviour of the persons who knew of the scheme
of the inroad beforehand and supported it is, as we see,
defended by saying that they acted thus in the interests of
and for the extension of Imperialism in South Africa. This
Government does not believe that the end justifies the means,
and is convinced that Her Majesty's Government does not wish
to be served by misdeed."

When this had been communicated to the British Colonial

Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, he replied (May 13) that the
President of the South African Republic "has been misinformed
if he supposes that Her Majesty's Government have taken the
part of any of British South Africa Company Directors,
including Mr. Rhodes, with regard to any connexion which they
may be hereafter proved to have had with the recent raid. … On
the contrary, while appreciating Mr. Rhodes's services in the
past, Her Majesty's Government have condemned the raid, and
the conduct of all the parties implicated by the telegrams
recently published. Her Majesty's Government have promised a
full Parliamentary inquiry, as soon as legal proceedings
against Dr. Jameson and his officers have been concluded, to
examine the Charter granted to British South Africa Company
and the operation of its provisions, and to consider whether
any improvements in it are desirable. Such an inquiry will go
into the whole subject, not only of recent events, but of the
whole administration. Her Majesty's Government cannot be
expected to announce any decision as to the future of the
Company until the Parliamentary Committee has made its
recommendations."

On the 15th President Kruger replied: "This Government is very

pleased at receiving the assurance that a searching inquiry is
being instituted against British South Africa Company and its
Directors, and will follow its course with interest." But the
following month found the authorities at Pretoria still
unsatisfied as to the intention of the British government to
bring Mr. Rhodes and the South Africa Company to account for
what they had done. On the 19th of June, the then Acting High
Commissioner (Sir Hercules Robinson having gone to England on
 leave) transmitted to Mr. Chamberlain two telegrams just
received by him from the government of the South African
Republic. The first was as follows: "Acting under
instructions, I have the honour to acquaint your Excellency,
for the information of Her Majesty's Government, that, with a
view to the welfare and peace of South Africa, this Government
is convinced that the proofs in the possession and at the
disposal of Her Majesty's Government now completely justify
and compel the bringing to trial of Messrs. Cecil Rhodes,
Alfred Beit, and Doctor Rutherford Harris, as has already been
done with Doctor Jameson and his accomplices. In the interests
of all South Africa, this Government feels itself obliged to
press the taking of this step upon Her Majesty's Government. I
have also the honour to request your Excellency to communicate
this despatch by cable to Her Majesty's Government in London."

The second was in this language: "This Government regards with

great regret the delay in the matter of the inquiry with
respect to the complicity and responsibility of British South
Africa Company in connexion with the raid of Doctor Jameson
and his band within the territory of this Republic. This
Government considers it its right and duty to press for the
speedy holding of the inquiry, not merely because it is the
injured party but also because of its interest and share in
the well-being of South Africa, whose interests, as repeatedly
intimated, are also dear to Her Majesty the Queen. This
Government is also convinced that it is urgently necessary
that the entire control and administration, as well civil as
military, be taken out of hands of British South Africa
Company and transferred to Her Majesty's Government, and I am
instructed to press this point on behalf of this Government. I
have further the honour to request your Excellency to cable
this despatch to Her Majesty's Government in London."

{472}

To these communications Mr. Chamberlain made a somewhat

haughty response. "Inform the Government of the South African
Republic," he cabled on the 25th of June, "that Her Majesty's
Government have received their telegrams of the 19th June,
which were published in London almost simultaneously with
their receipt by me. Her Majesty's Government do not require
to be reminded of their duty in regard to the recent invasion
of the South African Republic, and they cannot admit the claim
of the Government of the Republic to dictate the time and
manner in which they shall fulfil their obligations. I am
unable to understand the reasons which have suddenly
influenced the Government of the South African Republic to
make representations which are inconsistent with their
previous statements. On 18th April and on 15th May the
Government of the Republic appeared to be satisfied with the
assurances given them by Her Majesty's Government, from which
there has never been any intention of departing. It would not
be in accordance with English ideas of justice to condemn the
British South Africa Company and deal with its powers as
proposed in the telegrams before an enquiry had been made, and
before the Company had been heard in its own defence. With
regard to the demand of the Government of the South African
Republic that the three gentlemen specifically named shall now
be placed on their trial, you will remind them that Her
Majesty's Government can only act in this matter upon the
advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and in accordance
with the principles of English law."

But Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, on his side, was

equally—perhaps more than equally—watchful and critical of the
doings and omissions of the government of the South African
Republic. He kept an eye upon them that was especially alert
for the detection of infractions of the London Convention of
1884 (see above: A. D. 1884-1894), with its provisions very
strictly construed. He found treaties negotiated with foreign
powers in contravention of Article IV. of that Convention, and
laws passed which he deemed an infringement of its Article
XIV. He arraigned the government of the Republic upon each as