The Web 2.0 enabled collaboration at an unprecedented level. In one of the flagships of mass collaboration-Wikipedia-a large number of authors socially negotiate the world's largest compendium of knowledge. Several guidelines in Wikipedia restrict contributions to verifiable information from reliable sources to ensure recognized knowledge. Much psychological research demonstrates, however, that individual information processing is biased. This poses the question whether individual biases translate to Wikipedia articles or whether they are prevented by its guidelines. The present research makes use of hindsight bias to examine this question. To this end, we analyzed foresight and hindsight versions of Wikipedia articles regarding a broad variety of events (Study 1). We found the majority of articles not to contain traces of hindsight bias-contrary to prior individual research. However, for a particular category of events-disasters-we found robust evidence for hindsight bias. In a lab experiment (Study 2), we then examined whether individuals' hindsight bias is translated into articles under controlled conditions and tested whether collaborative writing-as present in Wikipedia-affects the resultant bias (vs. individual writing). Finally, we investigated the impact of biased Wikipedia articles on readers (Study 3). As predicted, biased articles elicited a hindsight bias in readers, who had not known of the event previously. Moreover, biased articles also affected individuals who knew about the event already, and who had already developed a hindsight bias: biased articles further increased their hindsight.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

No abstract

In hindsight, people often perceive events to be more inevitable and foreseeable than in foresight. According to Causal Model Theory (Nestler et al. in J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 34: 1043-1054, 2008), causal explanations are crucial for such hindsight distortions to occur. The present study provides further empirical support for this notion but extends previous findings in several ways. First, ecologically valid materials were used. Second, the effect of causal information on hindsight distortions was investigated in the realm of previously known events. Third, cross-cultural differences in reasoning (analytic vs. holistic) were taken into account. Specifically, German and Vietnamese participants in our study were presented with Wikipedia articles about the nuclear power plant in Fukushima Daiichi, Japan. They read either the version that existed before the nuclear disaster unfolded (Version 1) or the article that existed 8 weeks after the catastrophe commenced (Version 2). Only the latter contained elaborations on causal antecedents and therefore provided an explanation for the disaster. Reading that version led participants to perceive the nuclear disaster to be more likely inevitable and foreseeable when compared to reading Version 1. Cultural background did not exert a significant effect on these perceptions. Hence, hindsight distortions were obtained for ecologically valid materials even if the event was already known. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Hindsight bias is the mistaken belief that an outcome could have been foreseen once it is known. But what happens after learning about an event? Can reading biased media amplify hindsight distortions? And do people from different cultural backgroundswith different cognitive thinking stylesdraw equal conclusions from equal media reports? We report two studies with Wikipedia articles and samples from different cultures (Study 1: Germany, Singapore, USA, Vietnam, Japan, Sweden, N = 446; Study 2: USA, Vietnam, N = 144). Participants read one of two article versions (foresight and hindsight) about the Fukushima Nuclear Plant and estimated the likelihood, inevitability, and foreseeability of the nuclear disaster. Reading the hindsight article increased individuals' hindsight bias independently of analytic or holistic thinking style. Having excluded survey language as potential impact factor (Study 2), this result remains. Our findings extend prior research on hindsight bias by demonstrating the amplifying effect of additional (biased) information on hindsight bias.