In research on the hindsight bias, psychologists compare hindsight judgments made with knowledge of an outcome (e.g., the winner of an obscure military battle) to foresight judgments made without such knowledge. According to a popular cliché, hindsight is 20-20. In everyday life, the hindsight bias, or the I-knew-it-all-along effect, is perhaps the most widely recognized example of the influence of the present on recall. Schryer, in Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference, 2008 2.47.1 The Effects of the Present on Recall When initially presented in such a setting, it is difficult for any observer to recapture the naïve state of mind experienced by the original radiologist. This is particularly pernicious in radiology malpractice litigation in which the missed observation is frequently displayed at great magnification, because the defense’s claim may be that the abnormality was so subtle that to not have perceived it was within the standard of practice. A radiologist (or juror) who sees an abnormality, either independently or having been shown the finding, will be visually drawn to it on subsequent presentations. Once a person is aware of a fact, or makes an observation, psychologists have shown that the memory of it can be readily recalled. Initially, it can be a very difficult task, but once found, viewers are more likely to find Waldo more quickly when returning to the picture, even after many months. In the popular children’s book series Where’s Waldo? the reader tries to find Waldo, a person in a red and white striped shirt, glasses, and a cap in a visually cluttered picture. Visual hindsight bias refers to the retention of visual information in the mind, either consciously or subconsciously ( Harley et al., 2004). Robinson, in Blinding as a Solution to Bias, 2016 Visual Hindsight Bias Despite widespread knowledge of the composition of the jury, surveys during the trial showed that few trial attorneys and citizens expected an acquittal indeed Sporting Index reported that most American gamblers were betting on a conviction ( Los Angeles Times 1995). The reasons for the acquittal will never be known with certainty, but it seems clear that pronouncements of ‘racial nullification’ reflected hindsight bias. In fact, the jury literature provides little support for ‘racial nullification’ as a general phenomenon (Kerr et al. 18 percent of African Americans said they had ‘less confidence’ that ‘jurors can reach a verdict in a trial without letting their racial attitudes affect their judgment’ (Moore and Saad 1995). In an October 1995 Gallup poll, 48 percent of whites vs. Because 9 of the 12 jurors were African American, a large number of commentators, including the lead prosecutor, ‘explained’ the verdict as a case of ‘racial nullification’-the notion that African Americans are more lenient when judging other African Americans. Simpson at his criminal homicide trial in the USA. Trial evidence appears more incriminating to people who believe a defendant has been convicted than for those who believe the defendant was acquitted (Bodenhausen 1990).Ī pernicious example of this phenomena was the elite and popular reaction to the acquittal of actor/athlete O. Hindsight bias also influences citizens' ex post reactions to newsworthy legal decisions. Because most legal judgments are made ex post, they are vulnerable to this bias, as documented in a variety of experimental studies (Rachlinski 1998). Hindsight bias is the ex post tendency to overestimate the ex ante likelihood of an outcome, relative to what one would have actually guessed before the event. MacCoun, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 2.3 Hindsight Bias
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |