Hindsight Bias in Gustatory Judgments
Abstract
Abstract. Being in hindsight, people tend to overestimate what they had known in foresight. This phenomenon has been studied for a wide variety of knowledge domains (e.g., episodes with uncertain outcomes, or solutions to almanac questions). As a result of these studies, hindsight bias turned out to be a robust phenomenon. In this paper, we present two experiments that successfully extended the domain of hindsight bias to gustatory judgments. Participants tasted different food items and were asked to estimate the quantity of a certain ingredient, for example, the residual sugar in a white wine. Judgments in both experiments were systematically biased towards previously presented low or high values that were labeled as the true quantities. Thus, hindsight bias can be considered a phenomenon that extends well beyond the judgment domains studied so far.
References
(1991). The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147– 168
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1988). Hindsight bias: An impediment to accurate probability estimation in clinicopathologic conferences. Medical Decision Making, 8, 259– 264
(1998). Decomposing the hindsight bias: An integrative multinomial processing tree model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 387– 414
(1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288– 299
(1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311– 327
(in press) Hindsight bias: How does foresight knowledge and its processing affect our reconstruction of the past?. Memory,
(1989). Outcome feedback: Hindsight and information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 605– 619
(1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161– 1166
(1990). “I could never have expected it to happen\: The reversal of the hindsight bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 20– 33
(1997). Does a surprising outcome reinforce or reverse the hindsight bias?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 51– 57
(1992). Der Rückschau-Fehler: systematische Verfälschung der Erinnerung bei Experten und Novizen [Hindsight bias: Systematic distortions of the memory of experts and laymen]. Kognitionswissenschaft, 3, 38– 44
(1998). The effects of feedback source and plausibility on hindsight bias. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 191– 212
(2000). Comparing anchoring effect and hindsight bias: Different names for the same phenomenon?. Paper presented at the 2nd Hindsight Bias Workshop, Giessen/Rauischholzhausen, Germany.
(1995). Der Rückschaufehler bei der Lokalisierung von Städten auf einer Landkarte [Hindsight bias in localizing towns on a map]. Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie, 42, 63– 93
(in press) SARA - A cognitive process model to explain anchoring effect and hindsight bias. Memory,
(1996). No reduction of hindsight bias with complete information and repeated testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 49– 58
(2001). CGI versus JavaScript: A web experiment on the reversed hindsight bias. In U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of internet science 75– 90 Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
(in press) Strength of the hindsight bias as a consequence of meta-cognitions. Memory,
(1991). Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Review, 109, 472– 489
(1998). Hindsight bias: Impaired memory or biased reconstruction?. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.) European review of social psychology, (Vol. 8, pp. 105– 132 ). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
(1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437– 446
(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124– 1131
(1994). Naughty but nice: A laboratory study of health information and food preferences in a community sample. Health Psychology, 13, 180– 183
(in press) An inferential approach to the knew-it-all-along-phenomenon. Memory,
(1978). The “knew-it-all-along\ effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 345– 353
(1983). Pepsi versus Coke: Labels, not tastes, prevail. Psychological Reports, 52, 185– 186
