Five alternative information processing models that relate memory for evidence to judgments based on the evidence are identified in the current social cognition literature: independent processing, availability, biased retrieval, biased encoding, and incongruity-biased encoding. A distinction between two types of judgment tasks, memory-based versus on-line, is introduced and is related to the five process models. In memory-based tasks where the availability model describes subjects' thinking, direct correlations between memory and judgment measures are obtained. In on-line tasks where any of the remaining four process models may apply, prediction of the memory-judgment relationship is equivocal but usually follows the independence model prediction of zero correlation. This research was supported by funds from the Trout Foundation. Nancy Pennington provided extensive and valuable advice at all stages of this research. Ebbe B. Ebbesen, David L. Hamilton, G. Daniel Lassiter, and Thomas M. Ostrom made helpful comments on the research plan and on the manuscript.
The hindsight bias is the tendency for people with outcome knowledge to believe falsely that they would have predicted the reported outcome of an event. This article reviews empirical research relevant to hindsight phenomena. The influence of outcome knowledge, termed creeping determinism, was initially hypothesized to result from the immediate and automatic integration of the outcome into a person's knowledge of an event. Later research has identified at least 4 plausible, general strategies for responding to hindsight questions. These explanations postulate that outcome information affects the selection of evidence to make a judgment, the evidence evaluation, the manner in which evidence is integrated, or the response generation process. It is also likely, in some situations, that a combination of 2 or more of these mechanisms produce the observed hindsight effects. We provide an interpretation of the creeping determinism hypothesis in terms of inferences made to reevaluate case-specific evidence once the relevant outcome is known and conclude that it is the most common mechanism underlying observed hindsight effects.It is a common observation that events in the past appear simple, comprehensible, and predictable in comparison to events in the future. Everyone has had the experience of believing that they "knew all along" the outcome of a horse race, football game, marriage, business investment, or political election; and everyone has reacted skeptically to the same claims from someone else. These natural hindsight experiences seem especially likely to occur when the focal event has well-defined alternative outcomes (e.g., win-lose, compatibility-divorce, gainloss), when the outcome has emotional or moral significance, and when the event is subject to imaginative consideration before its outcome is known.A laboratory analogue to natural hindsight judgment situations has been developed, comprising three conditions. First, individuals receive information about some target event. Second, some individuals are informed of the outcome that "actually" occurred at the conclusion of the target event and other individuals are not. Third, all individuals are asked to estimate the probability of each outcome as if they had not received the outcome information. The resulting hindsight bias has been operationally defined as the tendency for individuals with outcome Reid Hastie was supported by funds from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Authorship credit is equally shared and authorship order was determined by a coin toss.The authors are grateful for thoughtful comments and criticisms from Jay Casper, Eric Johnson, Nancy Pennington, the participants in the Doctoral Seminar in Marketing (CMU), and several anonymous reviewers.
Subjects studied and recalled sentences describing behaviors while performing a laboratory impression-formation task. Recall was high for behaviors that were incongruent with a personality-trait impression for a character, whereas recall was much lower for behaviors that were congruent or neutral with reference to the impression. Set size, the number of congruent and incongruent behaviors attributed to the character, was shown to be a major determinant of this result. The smaller the size of the incongruent set, the higher the probability of recalling an item from the set. There was no tendency for behaviors to cluster by trait category in recall output protocols. This result was interpreted as evidence that a simple analogy to hierarchical noun categories, studied in many verbal learning experiments on organization of memory, did not apply to the present results. Three theoretical analyses-an associative network model, a depth-of-processing model, and a schema model-are reviewed in light of these results.Psychologists have been interested for a long time in the effects of abstract organizing principles on memory. Sir Frederic Bartlett's (1932) schema theory is one of the earliest efforts to explicate the relations between an abstract structure and the recall of specific facts. Bartlett proposed that memory is not primarily or literally reduplicative or reproductive. Rather, he argued that perceived events are assimilated to mental schemata that have been formed by similar events experienced in the past. Bartlett's classic treatise on remembering is replete with examples of phenomena that he believed evidenced the workings of these schemata.Researchers have studied the manner in
No abstract
This research investigates the Story Model, Pennington and Hastie's (1986, 1988) explanationbased theory of decision making for juror decisions. In Experiment 1, varying the ease with which stories could be constructed affected verdict judgments and the impact of credibility evidence. Memory for evidence in all conditions was equivalent, implying that the story structure was a mediator of decisions and of the impact of credibility evidence. In Experiments 2 and 3, Ss evaluated the evidence in 3 ways. When Ss made a global judgment at the end of the case, their judgment processes followed the prescriptions of the Story Model, not of Bayesian or linear updating models. When Ss made item-by-item judgments after each evidence block, linear anchor and adjust models described their judgments. In conditions in which story construction strategies were more likely to be used, story completeness had greater effects on decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.