Decision makers' hindsight bias after receiving favorable and unfavorable feedback.

The Role of Surprise in Hindsight Bias: A Metacognitive Model of Reduced and Reversed Hindsight Bias

“…This can be demonstrated by looking at a series of experiments by Hoch and Loewenstein (1989). Their studies have been cited by some authors (e.g., Hawkins & Hastie, 1990;Louie, 1999;Louie et al, 2000;Pohl, 1998) as evidence for the hypothesis that surprising outcomes (of difficult or misleading items) will result in less or even reversed hindsight bias and by others for the opposite hypothesis that surprising outcomes will lead to a stronger hindsight bias (e.g., Pezzo, 2003). Interestingly, both positions are correct and the series of experiments offers evidence for both hypotheses.…”

“…In fact, Mazursky and Ofir (1990) saw the feeling of surprise as responsible for their reversed hindsight bias findings. Similarly, Hoch und Loewenstein (1989) -as stated above -argue that people are capable of using the feeling of surprise as information about the difficulty of the prediction task (for additional evidence see Louie, 1999;Whittlesea & Williams, 2001). …”

“…Finally and most importantly, the above described experimental design is only able to detect a reduction in Information Model, in our opinion, substantially contributes to our knowledge about the different routes via which the feeling of surprise can effect the malleability of the hindsight bias. It combines the idea that the feeling of surprise is used to reconstruct pre-outcome predictions (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1989;Louie, 1999;Mazursky & Ofir, 1990;Ofir & Mazursky, 1997) with the idea of Pezzo (2003) about a sense-making process triggered by the feeling of surprise. By integrating both ideas in one model and including ideas from research on metacognitions and subjective experiences, the model allows for more precise predictions of the role of surprise in the reconstruction of pre-outcome predictions than previous models.…”

“…(2) A reversed hindsight bias has also been predicted and found when the outcome was of high personal relevance and at the same time highly self-threatening (see Louie, 1999;Louie, Role of Surprise in Hindsight Bias 4 4 Curren, & Harich, 2000;Mark & Mellor, 1991;Stahlberg, Hintz, & Schwarz, 2005;. The aim of this paper is to propose a new model explaining the role of surprise in hindsight bias, therefore, we will focus on the first condition, and previous research on this topic is reviewed in detail in the next paragraph.…”

Hindsight bias after receiving self-relevant health risk information: A motivational perspective

“…Consequently, it is commonly assumed that personally relevant feedback that is inconsistent with self-beliefs and personal goals produces systematically selfdefensive biases in judgements as a function of its positivity (Armor & Taylor, 1998;Ditto & Boardman, 1995;Kunda, 1987Kunda, , 1990. Drawing especially on the finding that individuals take credit for favourable outcomes and avoid blame for unfavourable outcomes, Mark and Melior (1991) proposed that individuals show a reduced or even reversed hindsight bias selectively for unfavourable outcomes (see also Louie, 1999;Mark et aI., 2003-this issue;. Derogating the predictability of the outcome decreases internal attributions for one's plight, and saves individuals from unpleasant feelings of guilt, regret, or blame for their situation, or from the notion that they should have prevented it.…”