Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon or creeping determinism, is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they were. After an event has occurred, people often believe that they could have predicted or perhaps even known with a high degree of certainty what the outcome of the event would be before it occurred. Hindsight bias may cause distortions of memories of what was known or believed before an event occurred and is a significant source of overconfidence in one's ability to predict the outcomes of future events. Examples of hindsight bias can be seen in the writings of historians describing the outcomes of battles, in physicians' recall of clinical trials, and in criminal or civil trials as people tend to assign responsibility on the basis of the supposed predictability of accidents.
History The hindsight bias, although it was not yet named, was not a new concept when it emerged in psychological research in the 1970s. In fact, it had been indirectly described numerous times by historians, philosophers, and physicians. In 1973, Baruch Fischhoff attended a seminar where Paul E. Meehl stated an observation: clinicians often overestimate their ability to have foreseen the outcome of a particular case, claiming they knew it all along. Baruch, a psychology graduate student at the time, saw an opportunity in psychological research to explain this tendency.
In the early 70s, the investigation of heuristics and biases was a large area of study in psychology, led by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Two heuristics identified by Tversky and Kahneman were of immediate importance in the development of the hindsight bias; these were the availability heuristic and the representativeness heuristic. In an elaboration of these heuristics, Beyth and Fischhoff devised the first experiment directly testing the hindsight bias. They asked participants to judge the likelihood of several outcomes of US president Richard Nixon's upcoming visit to Beijing and Moscow. Some time after president Nixon's return, participants were asked to recall (or reconstruct) the probabilities they had assigned to each possible outcome, and their perceptions of the likelihood of each outcome were greater or overestimated for events that had occurred. This study is frequently referred to in definitions of the hindsight bias, and the title of the paper, "I knew it would happen," may have contributed to the hindsight bias being interchangeable with the phrase, "knew-it-all-along phenomenon". In 1975, Fischhoff developed another method for investigating the hindsight bias, which was, at the time, referred to as the "creeping determinism hypothesis". This method involves giving participants a short story with four possible outcomes, one of which they are told is true, and are then asked to assign the likelihood of each particular outcome. Participants frequently assign a higher likelihood of occurrence to whichever outcome they have been told is true. Remaining relatively unmodified, this method is still used in psychological and behavioural experiments investigating aspects of the hindsight bias. Having evolved from the heuristics of Tversky and Kahneman into the creeping determinism hypothesis and finally into the hindsight bias as we now know it, the concept has many practical applications and is still at the forefront of research today. Recent studies involving the hindsight bias have investigated the effect age has on the bias, how hindsight may impact interference and confusion, and how it may affect banking and investment strategies.
Factors
Outcome valence and intensity Hindsight bias is more likely to occur when the outcome of an event is negative rather than positive. This is a phenomenon consistent with the general tendency for people to pay more attention to negative outcomes of events than positive outcomes. In addition, hindsight bias is affected by the severity of the negative outcome. In malpractice lawsuits, it has been found that the more severe a negative outcome is, the juror's hindsight bias is more dramatic. In a perfectly objective case, the verdict would be based on the physician's standard of care instead of the outcome of the treatment; however, studies show that cases ending in severe negative outcomes (such as death) result in a higher level of hindsight bias. For example, in 1996, LaBine proposed a scenario where a psychiatric patient told a therapist that he was contemplating harming another individual. The therapist did not warn the other individual of the possible danger. Participants were each given one of three possible outcomes; the threatened individual either received no injuries, minor injuries, or serious injuries. Participants were then asked to determine if the physician should be considered negligent. Participants in the "serious injuries" condition were not only more likely to rate the therapist as negligent but also rated the attack as more foreseeable. Participants in the no injuries and minor injury categories were more likely to see the therapist's actions as reasonable.
Surprise The role of surprise can help explain the malleability of hindsight bias. Surprise influences how the mind reconstructs pre-outcome predictions in three ways: 1. Surprise is a direct metacognitive heuristic to estimate the distance between outcome and prediction. 2. Surprise triggers a deliberate sense-making process. 3. Surprise biases this process (the malleability of hindsight bias) by enhancing the recall of surprise-congruent information and expectancy-based hypothesis testing. Pezzo's sense-making model supports two contradicting ideas of a surprising outcome. The results can show a lesser hindsight bias or possibly a reversed effect, where the individual believes the outcome was not a possibility at all. The outcome can also lead to the hindsight bias being magnified to have a stronger effect. The sense-making process is triggered by an initial surprise. If the sense-making process is not complete and the sensory information is not detected or coded [by the individual], the sensation is experienced as a surprise and the hindsight bias has a gradual reduction. When the sense-making process is lacking, the phenomena of reversed hindsight bias is created. Without the sense-making process being present, there is no remnant of thought about the surprise. This can lead to a sensation of not believing the outcome as a possibility.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
