Hindsight Bias and Law
Abstract
Abstract. Hindsight bias is the tendency to overestimate the foreseeability of an outcome once it is known. This bias has implications for decisions made within the legal system, ranging from judgments made during investigations to those in court proceedings. Legal decision makers should only consider what was known at the time an investigation was conducted or an offense was committed; however, they often review cases with full knowledge of a negative outcome, which can affect their judgments about what was knowable in the past. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on hindsight bias and law. We present five areas of law that hindsight bias affects (medical malpractice, forensic investigation, negligence, patent, criminal), two types of evidence that may lead to hindsight bias (visual and auditory evidence), and hindsight bias in experts and judges. Finally, we discuss strategies for reducing hindsight bias in legal decisions and recommend future research.
References Empirical studies included in the review are marked with an asterisk.
*2006). Separating compensatory and punitive damage award decisions by trial bifurcation. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 11–30. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9001-8
(*2013). Perceptions of similarity and responsibility attributions to an acquaintance sexual assault victim. Violence Against Women, 19, 1384–1407. doi: 10.1177/1077801213514860
(*1997). The mitigation of hindsight bias in judges’ evaluation of auditor decisions. Auditing, 16, 20–39.
(*1993). Evaluation of auditor decisions: Hindsight bias effects and the expectation gap. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 711–737. doi: 10.1016/0167-4870(93)90018-G
(*1988). Eliminating the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 305–307. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.305
(*2008). The influence of a physician’s use of a diagnostic decision aid on the malpractice verdicts of mock jurors. Medical Decision Making, 28, 201–208. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07313280
(*1981). Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 252–254. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.252
(*2010). Perception of line-up suggestiveness: Effects of identification outcome knowledge. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 214–230. doi: 10.1002/jip.123
(1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 569–579. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569
(2012). Auditory hindsight bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 588–593. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0268-0
(2015). Looking back on the London Olympics: Independent outcome and hindsight effects in decision evaluation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 798–807. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12116
(2008). How many hindsight biases are there? Cognition, 106, 1408–1440. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.007
(*2002). Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1933–1940. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa022151
(*1990). Second‐guessing the jury: Stereotypic and hindsight biases in perceptions of court cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1112–1121. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00394.x
(2015). Combating hindsight reconstruction in patent prosecution. Emory Law Journal, 64, 1137–1173.
(*1998). From compassion to compensation: The effect of injury severity on mock jurors’ liability judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1477–1502. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01687.x
(*2011). Surprise influences hindsight – foresight differences in temporal judgments of animated automobile accidents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 385–391. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0062-4
(*1991). Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care. Journal of the American Medical Association of America, 265, 1957–1960. doi: 10.1001/jama.1991.03460150061024
(*1999). Cognitive reconstruction, hindsight, and reactions to victims and perpetrators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 966–979. doi: 10.1177/01461672992511005
(*1989). The effect of hindsight on victim derogation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 331–343. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1989.8.3.331
(*1988). Cognitions, attitudes and decision-making in search and seizure cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 93–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00008.x
(*1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291–310. doi: 10.1007/BF01067031
(*2002). Debiasing the outcome effect: The role of instructions in an audit litigation setting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21, 7–20. doi: 10.2308/aud.2002.21.2.7
(1991). The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147–168. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90010-Q
(*2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78.
(*2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51, 204–208.
(2008). Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 900–903.
(2015). Context Management Toolbox: A Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 1111–1112.
(*1994). The effect of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners’ decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 279–292.
(*2013). Judgments about felony-murder in hindsight. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 277–285. doi: 10.1002/acp.2903
(*1997). Effects of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 597–617. doi: 10.1023/A:1024856613829
(*2009). Hindsight bias redefined: It’s about time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.07.001
(1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288
(1977). Perceived informativeness of facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 349–358. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.3.2.349
(*1996). Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 189–205. doi: 10.1007/BF01499354
(2010). When is the practice of pathology malpractice? Journal of Clinical Pathology, 63, 957–961. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2010.080929
(*2010). The impact of outcome knowledge, role, and quality of information on the perceived legitimacy of lethal force decisions in counter-terrorism operations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 337–350. doi: 10.1002/bsl.897
(*1999). The effects of injury severity on jury negligence decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 675–693. doi: 10.1023/A:1022341522714
(*2001). The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 228–237. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.228
(*2000). Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 187–205. doi: 10.1023/A:1005458919344
(*2011, January 1). Does bifurcation eliminate the problem? A closer look at hindsight bias in the courtroom. Retrieved from The Jury Expert website: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2011/01/does-bifurcation-eliminate-the-problema-closer-look-at-hindsight-bias-in-the-courtroom/
(2004). A meta-analysis of research on hindsight bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 103–117. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2004.9646399
(*2007). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 2000–2001 86, 777–830.
(Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Social Cognition, 25, 48–63. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.1.48
2004). The “saw-it-all-along” effect: Demonstrations of visual hindsight bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 960–968. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.5.960
(*1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Hindsight effects on judgments of liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 597–614. doi: 10.1023/A:1022352330466
(*1998). What juries can’t do well: The jury’s performance as a risk manager. Arizona Law Review, 40, 901–922.
(*1985). Cognitive biases in blaming the victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 161–177. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90013-7
(*1998). Causality as an influence on hindsight bias: An empirical examination of judges’ evaluation of professional audit judgment. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17, 143–167. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4254(97)10003-5
(2006). Debiasing through law. The Journal of Legal Studies, 35, 199–242. doi: 10.1086/500096
(*2000). The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evaluations of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses. The Accounting Review, 75, 327–341. doi: 10.2308/accr.2000.75.3.327
(*1991). Hindsight bias and third-party consentors to warrantless police searches. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 305–314. doi: 10.1007/BF01061715
(*1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 89–104. doi: 10.1007/BF01499075
(2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
(*1995). Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment. Accounting Review, 70, 249–273.
(*2012). Hindsight bias and its reversal: What will time reveal? Studia Psychologica, 54, 251–259.
(*1996). Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 501–516. doi: 10.1007/BF01499038
(*2011). Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 178–187. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4
(*2007). Hindsight bias among psychiatrists. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 35, 67–73.
(*2014). Misreporting signs of child abuse: The role of decision‐making and outcome information. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55, 1–9. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12096
(*1994). The effects of hindsight bias on jurors’ evaluations of auditor decisions. Decision Sciences, 25, 401–426. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb00811.x
(*1997). The influence of outcome effects, decision aid usage, and intolerance of ambiguity on evaluations of professional audit judgement. International Journal of Auditing, 1, 43–59. doi: 10.1111/1099-1123.00012
(*2002). The effects of decision-aid use and reliability on jurors’ evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review, 77, 185–202. doi: 10.2308/accr.2002.77.1.185
(*2012). Not so obvious after all: Patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, KSR, and the fear of hindsight bias. Georgia Law Review, 47, 41–111.
(*2006). Patently non-obvious: Empirical demonstration that the hindsight bias renders patent decisions irrational. Ohio State Law Journal, 67, 1391–1463.
(2012, October). L’Aquila earthquake scientists sentenced to six years in jail. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9626075/LAquila-earthquake-scientists-sentenced-to-six-years-in-jail.html
(*1983). Lung cancer detected during a screening program using four-month chest radiographs. Radiology, 148, 609–615. doi: 10.1148/radiology.148.3.6308709
(2006). 852 N.E.2d 813 (Ill 2006)
(*2006). Physician evaluation after medical errors: Does having a computer decision aid help or hurt in hindsight? Medical Decision Making, 26, 48–56. doi: 10.1177/0272989X05282644
(1996). No reduction in hindsight bias after complete information and repeated testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 49–58. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0064
(2003). Hindsight bias in gustatory judgments. Experimental Psychology, 50, 107–115. doi: 10.1026/1618-3169.50.2.107
(1998). A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight. The University of Chicago Law Review, 65, 571–625. doi: 10.2307/1600229
(*2011). Probable cause, probability, and hindsight. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 72–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01230.x
(*1997). An integration of hindsight bias and counterfactual thinking: Decision-making and drug courier profiles. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 539–560. doi: 10.1023/A:1024879824307
(2010). Blind expertise. New York University Law Review, 85, 174–257.
(*2006). The propensity effect: When foresight trumps hindsight. Psychological Science, 17, 305–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01703.x
(*2010). The visualization trap. Harvard Business Review, 88, 26
(2015). Forensic labs explore blind testing to prevent errors. Science, 349, 462–463. doi: 10.1126/science.349.6247.462
(*2005). Conduct and its consequences: Attempts at debiasing jury judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 505–526. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-5692-5
(*1998). Reducing the hindsight bias utilizing attorney closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 671–683. doi: 10.1023/A:1025706823554
(2008). 298 F. Supp. 2d 581 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
(Rational model and justification model in “outcome bias”. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 272–279. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.404
*2006).
(Hindsight bias and shooting incidents . In S. GilesM. SantarcangeloEds., Psychological Aspects of Legal Processes (pp. 17–24). Liverpool, UK: IA-IP Press.*1999). How do judges think about risk? American Law and Economics Review, 1, 26–62. doi: 10.1093/aler/1.1.26
(*2009). The hindsight bias and attitudes toward police deception in eliciting confessions. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 285–296.
(*2016). I knew it all along: The sexual grooming behaviors of child molesters and the hindsight bias. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25, 20–36. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2015.1108945
(*2001). The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 125–139. doi: 10.1023/A:1005689230013
(*2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251–1345. doi: 10.2307/4150614
(*2008). The influence of liability information, severity of injury, and attitudes toward vengeance on damage awards. Psychological Reports, 102, 239–258. doi: 10.2466/pr0.102.1.239-258
(*n.d.). Reducing the hindsight bias in mock-juror decision making: Assessing the effectiveness of a court-appointed witness. Communication Law Review. Retrieved from http://commlawreview.org/Archives/v8i1/Reducing%20the%20Hindsight%20Bias%20v8i1.pdf
(2002). Hindsight bias, Daubert, and the silicone breast implant litigation: Making the case for court-appointed experts in complex medical and scientific litigation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 154–179. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.8.2.154
(*2013). Modification of the audit report: Mitigating investor attribution by disclosing the auditor’s judgment process. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26, 35–50. doi: 10.2308/bria-50662
(