Literature DB >> 26168501

Hindsight Bias.

Neal J Roese1, Kathleen D Vohs2.   

Abstract

Hindsight bias occurs when people feel that they "knew it all along," that is, when they believe that an event is more predictable after it becomes known than it was before it became known. Hindsight bias embodies any combination of three aspects: memory distortion, beliefs about events' objective likelihoods, or subjective beliefs about one's own prediction abilities. Hindsight bias stems from (a) cognitive inputs (people selectively recall information consistent with what they now know to be true and engage in sensemaking to impose meaning on their own knowledge), (b) metacognitive inputs (the ease with which a past outcome is understood may be misattributed to its assumed prior likelihood), and (c) motivational inputs (people have a need to see the world as orderly and predictable and to avoid being blamed for problems). Consequences of hindsight bias include myopic attention to a single causal understanding of the past (to the neglect of other reasonable explanations) as well as general overconfidence in the certainty of one's judgments. New technologies for visualizing and understanding data sets may have the unintended consequence of heightening hindsight bias, but an intervention that encourages people to consider alternative causal explanations for a given outcome can reduce hindsight bias.
© The Author(s) 2012.

Entities:  

Keywords:  counterfactual; debias; hindsight bias; metacognition; overconfidence; “knew-it-all-along” effect

Year:  2012        PMID: 26168501     DOI: 10.1177/1745691612454303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  28 in total

1.  Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making.

Authors:  Dipesh P Gopal; Ula Chetty; Patrick O'Donnell; Camille Gajria; Jodie Blackadder-Weinstein
Journal:  Future Healthc J       Date:  2021-03

2.  Biases in the production and reception of collective knowledge: the case of hindsight bias in Wikipedia.

Authors:  Aileen Oeberst; Ina von der Beck; Mitja D Back; Ulrike Cress; Steffen Nestler
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-04-17

3.  Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists.

Authors:  Peter Nagy; Ruth Wylie; Joey Eschrich; Ed Finn
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Receipt of reward leads to altered estimation of effort.

Authors:  Arezoo Pooresmaeili; Aurel Wannig; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Are random events perceived as rare? On the relationship between perceived randomness and outcome probability.

Authors:  Karl Halvor Teigen; Gideon Keren
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-02

6.  Recognizing and reducing cognitive bias in clinical and forensic neurology.

Authors:  Saty Satya-Murti; Joseph Lockhart
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2015-10

7.  Ignoring memory hints: The stubborn influence of environmental cues on recognition memory.

Authors:  Diana Selmeczy; Ian G Dobbins
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Cheaters claim they knew the answers all along.

Authors:  Matthew L Stanley; Alexandria R Stone; Elizabeth J Marsh
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-09-15

9.  Reading about explanations enhances perceptions of inevitability and foreseeability: a cross-cultural study with Wikipedia articles.

Authors:  Aileen Oeberst; Ina von der Beck; Steffen Nestler
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2014-02-27

10.  What Could You Really Learn on Your Own?: Understanding the Epistemic Limitations of Knowledge Acquisition.

Authors:  Kristi L Lockhart; Mariel K Goddu; Eric D Smith; Frank C Keil
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2015-12-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.