Hindsight Bias - Research Paper Example

Rеsеаrсh Rероrt Name: Course: Institution: Tutor: Date: А Rеsеаrсh Rероrt Bаsеd On Dаtа Thаt Hаs Bееn Рrоvidеd Introduction Hindsight bias, also known as the creeping determinism or the ‘knew-it-all-along effect, is often viewed as the inclination to view events that have taken place as being more predictable than, perhaps, they were before they occurred. Scholars see hindsight bias as a multifaceted phenomenon that easily affects processes, design, situations, and contexts. Many psychologists see hindsight bias as having the capacity to cause memory distortion in incidences where the recollection and subsequent reconstruction of content may lead to false or wring theoretical outcomes. Scholars have suggested that the hindsight bias effect has the ability to cause methodological problems when trying to understand, analyze or interpret experimental results in research studies. For instance, after an individual has been shown the results of an unforeseeable event, the individual believes that he ‘knew it all along’. Such instances are found in the writings of clinician recalling clinical trials or historians trying to describe the outcomes of war. It can, therefore, be posited that the events that may have been viewed as unpredictable in foresight may be judged as predictable when viewed in hindsight. Suffice to say, hindsight bias has the capacity to cloud judgments including medical diagnosis, legal decisions, sporting events, or election outcomes. Researchers have argued that trying to recall foresight knowledge often fails because the newly gained knowledge influences the memory by biasing the attempts to recall the foresight knowledge. This study seeks to investigate whether people with high self-presentation concerns show greater hindsight bias. Literature Review Knoll and Arkes (2016) indicate that the first experiment on hindsight bias was performed by a researcher called Fischhoff. The fischhoff experiment presented different subjects with various descriptions of several historical events. One group of research subjects were given four possible outcomes. They were required to estimate each probable outcome. Another group referred to as the after condition group were given the same descriptions, however, they were also given a fictitious possible outcome presented as an actual outcome of the events (Knoll and Arkes, 2016). The subjects were then required to assess the probabilities of the possible outcome. It was found that the ‘after’ group exhibited higher probabilities to the events that they perceived as having taken place than the group that did not receive outcome information. The findings were seen to hold even when the research subjects were asked to answer as if they had not known the real outcome. The research design has variously been replicated, with different subject groups, for event description in many studies in various conditions; nevertheless, the findings have proved highly robust according to Pezzo (2011). Bias was found to exist for individual recall of prior probability. In the Fischhoff study, it was found that when some research subjects were requested to assign probabilities to the probable outcome of political events after the actual event had taken place, most subjects claimed that they had indicated higher probabilities than they had actually done. Roese and Vohs (2012) opine that psychologists investigating the hindsight bias phenomenon have concluded that there are three levels that come into play in order to exhibit the overall effect including foreseability, inevitability, and memory distortion with each level influencing the other so as to arrive at the overall bias. The researchers give the example of a football game where some individuals were asked to estimate the probability of a win for their team. The estimates were 60% (Roese and Vohs, 2012). The team won. Later, when asked what they were likely to have said, they recall that they would have said closer to 80%. The differential between the two figures is what makes the hindsight bias. Essentially, an individual tricks himself to exhibit more confidence of the earlier unremembered estimation which amounts to the statement that “I said it would happen”. The failure to remember the prior prediction is the memory distortion (Roese and Vohs, 2012). Inevitability occurs when individuals look back at events and easily identifies the cause and judge the outcome. For instance, a foreigner travelling in another country using a taxi, the taxi decides to take a long route to the individual’s destination. However, the foreigner doesn’t know the quickest route or how much it should cost. When later the individual gets to find out, he would make some links with a series of events and feel that he had been ripped off; however, the individual concludes that under the circumstances, such happenings were inevitable (Knoll and Arkes, 2016). The last level is the foreseability. Foreseability relates to an individual’s ability, knowledge, and beliefs. Often an individual is likely to hear of an event occurring and claim that he could have foreseen the event positing that ‘I could have told you that” Renner (2003) classifies hindsight bias into the overconfidence and myopia. According to the author, myopia is an error in trying to understand the cause of an event by looking at the wrong place or exaggerating the effect of the right cause. Overconfidence, on the other hand, is brought about by overlooking other possible explanations and, consequently, leads to bad decisions for not learning from experience (Renner, 2003). Research question Having recognized that there are various levels of hindsight bias, the study seeks to find whether the bias is only found among the highly opinionated individuals or does it affect all people. Question: do people with greater self-[presentation concerns show a greater hindsight bias? Note: all three hypotheses proposed were supported. Hypothesis 1: experimental group will demonstrate greater hindsight bias than control group. Hypothesis 2: individuals with higher social desirability concerns show greater hindsight bias. Hypothesis 3: individuals exposed to self-esteem threat display higher hindsight bias Method Participants The study enlisted 1391people, however, when the incomplete data was removed, 1160 responses remained. For inclusion in the study, the participants were expected to be fluent in English and be over 18 years. Gender distribution Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 445 38.4 38.4 38.4 Female 704 60.7 60.7 99.1 Other 5 .4 .4 99.5 I prefer not to say 6 .5 .5 100.0 Total 1160 100.0 100.0 As indicated in table 1, there were more women than men in the study cohort. The individuals from the university were 236 which represented 20% of respondents; however 79% were drawn from outside the university. The age distribution was reported at between 18 and 78 years of age. Ethnicity Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Anglo-Australian 602 51.9 51.9 51.9 Asian 229 19.7 19.7 71.6 European 114 9.8 9.8 81.5 Middle-eastern 73 6.3 6.3 87.8 African 20 1.7 1.7 89.5 Other (please specify) 106 9.1 9.1 98.6 I prefer not to say 16 1.4 1.4 100.0 Total 1160 100.0 100.0 The ethnic spread of the participants was diverse with the Anglo-Australian leading with 602 participants or 51.9% while the Asian came second with 229 participants or 19.7% of the total study group. The participants from European origin made a sizeable group at 9.8 %. The other participants came from diverse groups including Africans, Arabs, and those who preferred not to state their ethnicity. The significance of the ethnic distribution is to demonstrate that hindsight bias cuts across the ethnic or racial divide and individuals across the globe are likely to behave the same in relation to hindsight bias. Aim of the study The study aim was to explore the hindsight bias, which in essence, is the propensity of individuals believing that they ‘knew it all along’. The hindsight bias was tested by requesting all the individual participant to state what they thought was the likelihood that Maria would make full recovery. Half of the participants were provided with information that was relevant to Maria’s diagnosis, prognosis, and distress level. The second group was given irrelevant information to Maria’s psychological health. Finally, all the respondents were required to recall the judgment they had made earlier regarding the likelihood of a full recovery. The respondents who changed their recollection of their original prognosis so that they could be aligned to the actual prognosis as provided were considered to show greater hindsight bias. Ethical consideration The ethical issues of the study had been approved by the university human research ethics committee and the participants were advised to present their ethical concern to the committee through the director for research ethics and integrity. Procedure Results were obtained via an online survey platform (Qualtrics is a web-based survey platform which conducts surveys from creation, collection, and analysis) by subtracting the first recovery judgment from the second judgment. The survey questionnaire was emailed to the participants. Initially, the targeted participants were 1391 but only 1160 responded with completed questionnaire. Measures The study applied the Stober Social Desirability Scale (a score of 5 or lower = participant had low social desirability, a score of 11 or higher = participant had high social desirability). The respondents; after perusing Maria case study, to comment on whether Maria would make full recovery after attending psychological therapy. Half of the participants were provided with information that was relevant to Maria’s diagnosis, prognosis, and distress level. The second group was given irrelevant information to Maria’s psychological health. Finally, all the respondents were required to recall the judgment they had made earlier regarding the likelihood of a full recovery. Results The dependent variable is size of the hindsight bias (the difference between the initial hindsight bias and recollection bias).The independent variable is Maria’s recovery, scores on the social desirability scale, and the threat to self-esteem. Descriptive statistics Social Desirability (SD) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid low SD 240 20.7 44.1 44.1 high SD 304 26.2 55.9 100.0 Total 544 46.9 100.0 Missing System 616 53.1 Total 1160 100.0 The table show that the participants with social desirability represented 20.7% on the scale with a 44.1 valid percentage while those with high social desirability had a valid score 26.2%. 53.1% of the total participants did not reflect any valid percentage. Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper hindsight bias index Equal variances assumed 1.246 .500 -6.756 581 .000 -1.19615 .17704 -1.54387 -.84842 Equal variances not assumed -6.920 516.866 .000 -1.19615 .17286 -1.53575 -.85655 The table shows the independent sample test which shows that the t=value is significant at 6.75 on assumed equal variances and 6.9 on the equal variances not assumed. However, the mean difference for both measures is insignificant at Read More

It was found that the ‘after’ group exhibited higher probabilities to the events that they perceived as having taken place than the group that did not receive outcome information. The findings were seen to hold even when the research subjects were asked to answer as if they had not known the real outcome. The research design has variously been replicated, with different subject groups, for event description in many studies in various conditions; nevertheless, the findings have proved highly robust according to Pezzo (2011).

Bias was found to exist for individual recall of prior probability. In the Fischhoff study, it was found that when some research subjects were requested to assign probabilities to the probable outcome of political events after the actual event had taken place, most subjects claimed that they had indicated higher probabilities than they had actually done. Roese and Vohs (2012) opine that psychologists investigating the hindsight bias phenomenon have concluded that there are three levels that come into play in order to exhibit the overall effect including foreseability, inevitability, and memory distortion with each level influencing the other so as to arrive at the overall bias.

The researchers give the example of a football game where some individuals were asked to estimate the probability of a win for their team. The estimates were 60% (Roese and Vohs, 2012). The team won. Later, when asked what they were likely to have said, they recall that they would have said closer to 80%. The differential between the two figures is what makes the hindsight bias. Essentially, an individual tricks himself to exhibit more confidence of the earlier unremembered estimation which amounts to the statement that “I said it would happen”.

The failure to remember the prior prediction is the memory distortion (Roese and Vohs, 2012). Inevitability occurs when individuals look back at events and easily identifies the cause and judge the outcome. For instance, a foreigner travelling in another country using a taxi, the taxi decides to take a long route to the individual’s destination. However, the foreigner doesn’t know the quickest route or how much it should cost. When later the individual gets to find out, he would make some links with a series of events and feel that he had been ripped off; however, the individual concludes that under the circumstances, such happenings were inevitable (Knoll and Arkes, 2016).

The last level is the foreseability. Foreseability relates to an individual’s ability, knowledge, and beliefs. Often an individual is likely to hear of an event occurring and claim that he could have foreseen the event positing that ‘I could have told you that” Renner (2003) classifies hindsight bias into the overconfidence and myopia. According to the author, myopia is an error in trying to understand the cause of an event by looking at the wrong place or exaggerating the effect of the right cause.

Overconfidence, on the other hand, is brought about by overlooking other possible explanations and, consequently, leads to bad decisions for not learning from experience (Renner, 2003). Research question Having recognized that there are various levels of hindsight bias, the study seeks to find whether the bias is only found among the highly opinionated individuals or does it affect all people. Question: do people with greater self-[presentation concerns show a greater hindsight bias? Note: all three hypotheses proposed were supported.

Hypothesis 1: experimental group will demonstrate greater hindsight bias than control group. Hypothesis 2: individuals with higher social desirability concerns show greater hindsight bias. Hypothesis 3: individuals exposed to self-esteem threat display higher hindsight bias Method Participants The study enlisted 1391people, however, when the incomplete data was removed, 1160 responses remained. For inclusion in the study, the participants were expected to be fluent in English and be over 18 years.

Read More