Bradfield,
A. & Wells, G. L. (2005). Not
the same old hindsight bias: Outcome information distorts a broad range of
retrospective judgments. Memory &
Cognition, 33, 120-130.
Introduction: When people are given outcome information and then
asked what they would have predicted the outcome to be if not given the
information, it has been shown that they will overestimate their abilities to
determine the outcome (the hypothetical paradigm). The effect can also refer to what happens
when people are asked to make predictions, and after receiving outcome
information, misremember their previous judgments to bring them more in line
with the true outcome (the memory paradigm).
Fischhoff (1977) explained hindsight bias as an automatic phenomenon,
whereby memory is altered without the conscious knowledge of the individual,
replacing previous memories of the event.
An alternative view is that hindsight bias is a motivational phenomenon
resulting from people attempting to make themselves
appear to be good decision-makers. The
current study attempts to eliminate the possibility of individual’s
misremembering the event and then test the boundaries of hindsight bias by
measuring other aspects of retrospective memory dealing with the
decision-making processes used.
Experiment 1 Method:
For this experiment
participants watched a video of a hypothetical couple’s counseling
session. Participants were then asked to
make a prediction about which person had either committed suicide or had an
affair shortly after the videotape was made, after which they received either
confirming or disconfirming feedback. Half
were randomly assigned to the suicide condition in which they were told one
member of the couple had committed suicide and asked to predict which one and
the other half were told one member of the couple had an affair and asked to
predict which one. Next they were
randomly assigned either confirming or disconfirming feedback. Three minutes after receiving the feedback
the participants completed a questionnaire measuring the decision-making
processes used, their general abilities, and the event itself. The dependent measures are shown on Table 1.
Results: Results show no relationship with whether participants
chose the male or female and feedback, but there was a main effect of the
feedback variable and an interaction between the feedback and the story
(feedback effects were larger in the affair condition). Confirming feedback also increased
participants’ reports of confidence, the ease and speed with which they made
the decision, and how good they are at making judgments about others and
interpreting nonverbal behaviors.
Discussion: The
current expands on the hindsight bias effect in that even when the element of
misremembering previous judgments is removed people are still susceptible to a
large number of memory distortions.
However, perhaps these distortions are due to the fact that individuals
do not think about things like their confidence until they are presented with
the questionnaire.
Experiment 2 Method:
Experiment 2 presented some of
the participants with some of the questions that would later be asked on the
questionnaire and asked them to think privately about what their answers would
be. The prediction was that the prior
knowledge of the questions would moderate the effect of post-decision
feedback.
Results: The analysis revealed a significant main effect of
feedback, as in experiment 1, but also an interaction between feedback and
question knowledge. Knowledge of the
questions eliminated the effect of feedback on retrospective certainty (see
Figure 1), as well as reports on participants’ abilities to detect variations
in tone of reports. Interestingly,
participants in the question knowledge condition reported recalling more
negative comments than those who received disconfirming feedback.
Discussion: Experiment 2 indicates that giving participants a
chance to consider the questions prior to the event mitigates the effect of
post-decision feedback. Further, the
evidence suggests that hindsight bias is in fact an automatic process in that
individuals did not attempt to make themselves appear to be good decision
makers, which is clearly in opposition to the motivational explanation.
General Discussion:
The current research provides
further evidence of the effects of outcome information in creating hindsight
bias. It offers an effective method for
mitigating the effects of post-decision feedback by allowing participants to
consider the questions before witnessing the event. The question is raised as to whether
hindsight bias is actually a bad thing.
While hindsight bias in doctors and eyewitnesses might be extremely
critical, there is the possibility that it might actually be beneficial for
mental well-being.
Important Legal
Disclaimer: The preceding are articles we read together in the Lampinen Lab
Fall 2005 false memory reading group. By clicking on the button next to the
article you can see the summary of that article. The summary was prepared by
the student presenting that article and it is of course the case that the views
expressed in the summary do not necessarily represent the views of the reading
group as a whole, Dr. Lampinen, the Lampinen Lab, Hugo's, the University of
Arkansas, the Razorback Football or Basketball teams (although we're not sure
about cross country), people living down the street from us, Bob Dylan, Jack
Fate, our extended families, or anyone else for that matter except for the
student who wrote the summary (and they don't necessarily believe what they
wrote either).