Talk:Hindsight bias

September 2006

This is my first serious attempt at growing the knowledge contained in Wikipedia. I've tried my best to conform to the formating and content standards of this sphere, but if you see any problems with my work, I would appreciate feedback. Thanks. My edit was of implications/classic studies from the Myers textbook.

(Contributed by User:Irimi)

I have a problem with the section listing phrases describing them as "illustrative of this fallacy":

Phrases The following common phrases are illustrative of this fallacy: With the wisdom of hindsight. Retrospective foresight. Hindsight is 20/20. Hindsight is a wonderful thing

I don't think the common use of these phrases is so much an illustration (nor example) of this fallacy, but something slightly different, which I might almost call a joke (I don't know what to call it).

When someone (or I) say something like "hindsight is 20/20" I'm not trying to say (or imply) that someone has a false recollection that their prediction of outcome was correct, but instead saying that, now that the result is known, anybody could "predict" this (ex poste facto).

At least I don't think so. I haven't changed anything on the page because I'm not 100% sure of myself or of how I might change that section if I were 100% sure.

209.60.102.231 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Classic studies

What exactly does either of the "classic studies" cited have to do with hindsight bias? I haven't removed them because I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something, but they both seem to be about a totally unrelated subject. 81.86.133.45 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If they seem to be unrelated, they probably are, this is Wikipedia. Classic studies should refer to seminal articles. These should include the first empirical tests of the hindsight bias done by Fischhoff, B. (1975), also one should discuss the 2 meta-analyses and the single narrative review that has been done on the hindsight bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.58.192 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they seem to be irrelevant to this article.MartinPoulter (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone get an Oxford Dictionary of the English Language based citation for the pronunciation comment? In addition, I think the pronunciation guide more properly belongs in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.74.31 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples

Could we please have some examples on this page? Without them it's quite hard to work out what the article is talking about. 58.165.109.255 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How is Pavlov's dog exhibiting hindsight bias... ? That's just not what that bias is about. I haven't looked up the citation given, but it doesn't seem initially plausibel that such an encyclopedia would make that claim. - 79.92.46.10 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I think the section on popular culture should be dropped. Most of the examples provide therein are either inaccurate (e.g., they refer to overconfidence or simple egoism) or they are colloquial and improperly cited (e.g., weather and sports examples).

I'm not sure if the popular culture section was added to address the 'examples' issue noted above, but for a psychological phenomenon which is related but distinct form other phenomena, precision is important. I believe it should be relatively easy to pull examples from actual papers (e.g., medical malpractice). 128.237.247.173 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing as I skimmed through this. Removed. —tktktk 01:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Elimination

... Researchers attempt to decrease the bias in participants has failed, leading one to think that hindsight bias has an automatic source in cognitive reconstruction. This supports the Causal Model Theory and the use of sense-making to understand event outcomes. ...

I'm confused by the above statement. Can someone help to simplify and clarify it. I would rewrite it as follows but I'm not sure if that's what is being said. I couldn't access the reference so I don't know the original statement by Blank, H., & Nestler, S. (2007).

... Attempts by researchers to decrease hindsight bias in participants has failed. This failure led some to think that hindsight bias has an automatic source in cognitive reconstruction. And this supports the Causal Model Theory and the use of sense-making to understand event outcomes. ...

Abelmebratu (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

maybe explain the causal model theory or link it to its Wiki page so people can find out more about it you can probably also reword the phrases so the second sentence doesn't start with "And this supports the Causal Model Theory...", seems grammatically weak

Wrong article

Hindsight and hindsight bias/knew-it-all-along effect are not the same thing. Hindsight is merely the "perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred". It does not necessarily mean you think you predicted it when in fact you didn't. The bias part of the article should be split off, or made just a subsection.Malick78 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the hindsight bias. I've moved it back to where it should be. --JorisvS (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing for class project

My name is Victoria, and over the next few weeks I plan on editing the hindsight bias article through a class at Shenandoah University. I plan on including information from the following two sources: - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmathews102 (talk • contribs)

Welcome! - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Bare reference added, not after anything

A new editor just added (in ref tags not on any statement):

Harley, E. M. (2007). HINDSIGHT BIAS IN LEGAL DECISION MAKING. Social Cognition, 25(1), 48-63.

Does anyone have this to hand, as a possible source for new content? - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Social Cognition Project

These edits are done by Miami University students for a Social Cognition assignment.

1. Lack of information about the sense-making process when explaining how surprise effects hindsight bias and Pezzo’s sense-making model. This models integrates two supported contradicting ideas that a surprising outcome can either show results of lesser or possibly reversed hindsight bias (when the individual will believe that the outcome wasn't a possibility at all), or a surprising outcome can lead to the hindsight bias being even stronger than before. “Initial surprise is necessary to trigger the sense-making process but if the sense making is not successful, surprise should prevail and -- as a consequence-- hindsight bias should be attenuated.” This lack of a sense-making process is what creates a reversed hindsight bias. Insight problems are expected to create a stronger hindsight bias because even though the individual is initially surprised, the solution to the insight problem makes sense after it has been seen.

2. My article is already cited in the wikipedia article but it can be expanded on. They only spend one line explaining the article and how to eliminate hindsight bias. Research by Arkes, Faust, Guilmette, and Hart show that hindsight bias can be decreased by having participants think about a reason that the alternate hypothesis or hypotheses could be correct. This does not eliminate hindsight bias but it significantly decreases it. One explanation for this effect is that the participants start to doubt that the correct hypothesis and they report that they wouldn't have chosen it as often.

3. My article was not cited in the wiki page but I feel like they could reference it. In my article they looked at the magnitude of the bias that dealt with memory distortion. They wanted to see whether there was a relationship between the amount of time that they gave the participants to respond and their level of bias. The results of Calvillo (2013) demonstrate that response time when recollecting foresight judgments is related to hindsight bias in a memory design. In both of the experiments participants made judgments, completed unrelated tasks, and then were then given the correct answer to some of the previous questions. They were then asked to recall their original judgments. Half of the participants were asked to recall their original judgments quickly while the other half was given time to process this and respond with their original judgement. The hindsight bias index was greater among rapidly responding participants than among delayed responding participants. The wiki page makes no mention of the magnitude of bias being affected by amount of time given to process their judgments.

Cprazete (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition in lede needs revision

The lede defines hindsight bias as follows:

Hindsight bias . . . is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place.

By that definition, a person exhibiting hindsight bias as to event A would affirm the following statement:

Before event A occurred, it was not as predictable as it is now. Now that it has occurred, it is more predictable.

That of course is nonsense, and is not an expression of hindsight bias. As I understand the concept, a person exhibiting hindsight bias will affirm the following statement after event A has occurred:

I could have predicted that A would happen;

whereas, in fact, before the occurrence of A the person had no basis on which to predict whether or not A would happen.

For example, on a certain day, when Mary has no way of knowing what is about to happen to John, John gets hit by a bus. Upon learning of the event, Mary feels certain that she might have predicted, almost predicted, or did indeed predict, John's accident. She does not believe that John's accident is more predictable now that it's happened than it was before it happened, as the definition currently given suggests.

Somebody familiar with the literature on hindsight bias should revise the lede. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at it. The problem is not so much familiarity with the topic (you also know what it is), but how to accurately and concisely word that into a definition. I hope it is now better. --JorisvS (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Better, but still not quite there. With JorisvS's permission, I'll substitute the following:

. . . the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it, prior to its occurrence.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But it is more of a gradation. For example, if you present people with the solution to a problem, they will overestimate the likelihood they would have solved it. --JorisvS (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha. That's why I wanted somebody familiar with the literature to tackle it! ;0) Would it suffice to change it to "to see the event as having been more or less predictable . . . ."? Or is the difficulty that the bias applies not only to events but to other phenomena, such as the solution to a problem? Arguably the solution to a problem is an event from the perspective of the person it's presented to--i.e., the discovery of the solution. But to solve a problem is not the same thing as to predict that it will be solved, or to predict what the solution will be. Are we sure that we're talking about the same phenomenon? Are "I could have predicted that event," and "I could have solved that problem," really examples of the same bias? Maybe the problem with the definition given in the lede isn't merely logical but also substantive. Surely somewhere in the literature there is a concise and logical definition of hindsight bias! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. It may not have been definitively answered by psychologists. There could be common basis for both estimate: one makes an estimate knowing the outcome/solution, which is basically an anchoring effect, and people are well known to insufficiently adjust their estimate. --JorisvS (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this any better?

Hindsight bias is the inclination to regard a known datum as having been more or less knowable or predictable before it actually became known, even though there was little or no objective basis for knowing or predicting it beforehand. For instance, when presented with the solution to a puzzle, Smith says, "I could have solved that." Similarly, upon the occurrence of an event, Jones says, "I had a feeling that was going to happen." In both cases, Smith and Jones may be exhibiting hindsight bias.

That avoids the question I raised earlier, by referring to knowledge or prediction of a datum, rather than just prediction of an event; but it is rather complex and lengthy for a definition. And of course I may not understand the concept quite. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's replace "datum" with "fact" (datum = a fact known from direct observation, so "known datum" is a bit a tautology). Let's also add "derivable", because that's better for the puzzle-solution part. And by making the examples also a bit more general we then get:

Hindsight bias is the inclination to regard a known fact as having been more or less knowable, predictable, or derivable before it actually became known, even though there was little or no objective basis for knowing or predicting it beforehand. For example, when presented with the solution to a puzzle, people overestimate the likelihood they would have solved it. Similarly, upon the occurrence of an event people often feel it was more predictable than it really was.

I'm not yet happy with "even though there was little or no objective basis for knowing or predicting it beforehand" because that still neglects the puzzle-solution thing. --JorisvS (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hee dat was vlug, Joris!

I like that, although I might suggest that derivable is comprised within knowable, and I'm not sure every solution to a problem is derived--but those are minor quibbles. I wasn't aware that datum implied known--I was trying to avoid the implication of done in fact, but I readily concede the point. In the first example, I would insert "may" before "overestimate" (since not everybody exhibits hindsight bias); and in the second I'd put a comma after "event".

As for the objective basis part, if we allow knowing to include deriving, does that take care of puzzle-solving? We talk about knowing the answer to a puzzle or problem, after all. If I say, "I could have solved that problem," what kind of evidence might I point to, to show that I am not exhibiting hindsight bias? For instance, if I were a mathematician and the problem was a simple equation in algebra, I'd have had an objective basis, before I was given the answer, for thinking that I could solve the problem--i.e. that I could come to know the answer--without help. Is that good enough? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe technically 'knowing' may include 'deriving' here (I already thought that was how you intended it), but I think it is best to ignore that, so that it is logical to many more people, even if they are not very carefully reading it and thinking it through (which would be the great majority). I'd add something like "generally", because these are averages, but "may" implies more a probability. It is actually as much (or more) knowing how to get to the answer than it is knowing the answer itself. We'd now get:

Hindsight bias is the inclination to regard a known fact as having been more or less knowable, predictable, or derivable before it actually became known, even though there was little or no objective basis for knowing or predicting it beforehand. For example, when presented with the solution to a puzzle, people generally overestimate the likelihood they would have solved it. Similarly, upon the occurrence of an event, people often feel it was more predictable than it really was.

If you are someone who has a lot of experience in coming to an answer (which is beforehand), then there is no bias involved. The point is the overestimation of one's likelihood of solving; if one is 100% certain to find an answer already, then one cannot overestimate that! --JorisvS (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To me (and this happens to be an area in which I can claim some expertise), generally implies a much stronger probability than may, which expresses only possibility. To say that X is generally true suggests that X will usually or virtually always be found to be true--that one can generalize by saying "X is true". But to say that X may be true leaves open the broad possibility that, at least in many cases, X will turn out not to be true. The latter more accurately applies to hindsight bias, doesn't it? Can one generalize by saying, "People think they could have solved a problem, once they know the answer"? I don't think so, so I'd keep "may" rather than "generally". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's more like most people will show hindsight bias to some degree, and some more strongly than others. What about "tend to" instead? --JorisvS (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Now we're homing in on it! "Tend to" sounds good, but we could also say just what you've said in your explanation: ". . . most people will overestimate, to some degree, the likelihood . . . ." J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Change Below Factors and Effects

The area just below the header "Factors and Effects" and above the subheading "Affected Bias" should be removed. It is not only redundant because that information has already been provided at the top, but it is also incomplete/incorrect. Hindsight bias is not the phenomenon where the original recollection changes from "an original thought to something different provided new information." This definition could mean anything. For example, changing my original thought that oranges are yellow, then believing they are orange based off of someone telling me so in itself is not hindsight bias. The definition must catch the idea that I now believe that I had always known that oranges are orange, not simply that I changed that original thought from yellow to orange. Ackelleher17 (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the section is factually wrong, especially the first section of it. That said, I don't know if the right answer is to remove it rather than move it or improve it. The study involving medical outcomes, for example (2nd paragraph) could help buttress either the history section above it, or health care system examples at the bottom of the article. In addition, it might be worth assessing the merit of this claim based on the evidence in the cited paper: "a focus on two main explanations of the bias: distorted event probabilities and distorted memory for judgments of factual knowledge." If there are really two main streams of explanations, so to speak, then I'd think it's an important thing to keep in the article, but probably rephrased and expanded so that it's clearer than it currently is. Jennjiyoun (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should rather be improved or moved rather than removed. The definition should also be rephrased as it is clearly too vague maybe something a long the lines of "seeing events or information as much more predictable than it is" or "false awareness of knowledge" or something that mixes the two. I would also maybe move the "motivated forgetting" section to another part not under effects. Or separate the factors/effects section as they are not really the same thing.

What if rather improving the definition of hindsight bias in the first sentence of this section, we just take it out since the definition is already in the introduction of the page? Ackelleher17 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good change, as there is even another section of the article that includes a redundant definition of Hindsight Bias (I discussed it in the Schizophrenia section below. It also looks like in this "factors and effects" section, the "two main explanations of bias" are introduced but not explicitly elaborated on - perhaps that could be another point that you look at. As a reader, I would organizationally expect to see a sub-heading that explains "distorted event probabilities and distorted memory for judgments of factual knowledge" (or even a hyperlink). Cnwobu (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Related Disorders" Section

The fact that this section is entitled "related disorder" makes it seem to the reader that hindsight bias itself is a disorder. This is simply not true. Perhaps a better heading would read "Disorders that Highlight the Effects of Hindsight Bias." Although I am not convinced that this section is appropriate for this page, at least this heading would prevent people from developing the misconception that hindsight bias is a disorder. The PTSD section has too little to do with hindsight bias to make it appropriate to be a part of the hindsight bias page. The fact that patients with PTSD have abnormalities in some areas of the brain that may affect hindsight thinking is not a clear or a strong connection to make. This section is also better off not being included. Ackelleher17 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that this heading is not a good one to use and can easily deceive people, since the hindsight bias is not a disorder, but it is more of an effect that can occur to an individual. Perhaps instead of talking about disorders that may highly the effects of hindsight bias, you can give examples of how the hindsight bias works, like in terms of the 9/11 attacks. You can get news articles and magazine articles stating how, after the attack occurred, some people say they "knew it was going to happen." However, if they "knew" the attacks were going to happen, then why didn't they tell government officials beforehand. Ashley (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Related disorders" is not an appropriate subject line, but "Disorders that highlight the effects of hindsight bias" is not very clear either. I suggest changing the heading to "Disorders involving hindsight bias." This does not suggest the bias as a disorder, but expands on the subject by explaining how it is related to highly-technical disorders that also involve brain damage. In regards to the suggestion to remove the PTSD section completely, I don't think this is necessary. Relating the bias to specific disorders helps readers put the concept in different context and shows that there are other ways in which the bias is important that don't have to do with every day cognitive processing. Perhaps there is just a better way to word it that would make this section sound more applicable to hindsight bias. KieraMolloy18 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How about "Hindsight Bias and Mental Illness". It draws the connection that we want readers to see and yet keeps the two terms separate. However I don't logistically see the reason for having this section, I think it makes far more sense to have the pages for the individual conditions have a section on how hindsight bias affects it. Michael O'Sullivan Duke (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Elimination" Section

For clarity purposes, I would begin the section stating that there is no solution to eliminate hindsight bias in its totality, but only ways to decrease hindsight bias in testing. That being said, I would continue by stating the only observable way to do so. Because there is only an observable way in testing, why is it that research shows people still exhibit the bias even when they are informed about it? As a result, I would continue by illuminating that researchers’ attempts to decrease the bias in its entirety have failed, leading one to think that hindsight bias may also have an automatic source. Is there any information or conducted research/studies to suggest that hindsight bias is automatically sourced in the cognitive reconstruction of events? Without concrete facts or an explanation of conducted studies, this claim diminishes the legitimacy of the article. If there is none, then I would suggest eliminating this claim from the paragraph and only discussing the one way to reduce hindsight bias in testing. Overall, there are a few grammar changes including “Researchers attempts” to “Researchers’ attempts” and the inclusion of the word “the” before “correct hypothesis” in the second to last sentence. In the end, a new heading such as “The Reduction of Hindsight Bias in Testing” would prevent people from developing the misconception that hindsight bias can be eliminated in the human mindset, as suggested with its current header.

Jmt59 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about the possibility of a pure automatic process, here's an article that describes a possible combination of motivational and automatic processes (http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03197054#page-1).

I agree that the "Elimination" Section could be improved. Changing the title could help, but I think "The Reduction of Hindsight Bias in Testing" may be too wordy and too specific to Testing. Maybe consider doing "Attempts to Decrease Hindsight Bias", or something more concise than that. I like your idea to switch around the order of the paragraph to make it more clear -- explaining how to decrease the bias in testing and then stating that other attempts have failed. If you can find concrete examples of researchers trying to eliminate the bias and failing, those would be great to include. Also, the line about the Causal Model Theory is pretty confusing without knowledge of what it is. This line should either be removed, more explanation given, or at least a link added that redirects you to a page about the Causal Model Theory Psy250 jes85 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Auditory Distractions

Overall, this section needs more clarification on what constitutes "less-degraded", "moderately-degraded" or "highly-degraded" words in order for the reader to fully comprehend the experiment. Additionally, it is evident that individuals (whether speakers or listeners) overestimate their abilities in their respective roles. However, it needs to be clearer if this overestimation in all scenarios (speaking and listening) that then leads to this feeling of inevitability is in fact the auditory distraction being discussed that causes the auditory hindsight bias. Jmt59 (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. I would also suggest describing the studies a little further and in more detail. Also the link they use to cite their summary does not work in the reference section. ([20]) You could also see if there are any newer articles out on auditory distractions or if any of the other senses have been tested.

Thank you for your feedback! I have elaborated on the four experiments and included more detail as recommended. Also, the link used to cite their summary is now working. I am still researching articles delineating other senses that have been tested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmt59 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Improvement for the Introduction

Parts of the introduction comes off as unclear. Looking at your source for the second sentence, I see the idea you want to get across. However, the subject of the sentence is unclear when you refer to the "designs, processes, contexts, and situations." In order to get the idea across that many studies had been done to assess hindsight bias using those four things, I would suggest rewording the sentence to say "It is a multifaceted phenomenon that has been observed through different studies using different designs, processes, contexts, and situations." Also, the third sentence seems a little forced, since it is very similar to the introductory sentence in the third citation. Perhaps leaving this idea out could free up the introduction to a little more elaboration on the examples given. Ackelleher17 (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that the rewording of the second sentence is necessary in order to clear up what is being conveyed to the reader. Also, I think elaborating and clearer examples might add to the reader's initial understanding of what the Hindsight bias actually is. Cproctor23 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Cproctor23

The Healthcare Section under Examples

This section may become misleading. A reader may read this and think that hindsight bias is responsible for these patient deaths. Especially from the following passage, some of these facts may need further clarification of how hindsight bias is important in the field of medicine. I disagree with the need for the following passage to be included in the paragraph, since it has little to do with hindsight bias itself because priming comes before diagnosis and hindsight bias comes after.

Physicians who are primed with a possible diagnosis before evaluating the symptoms of a patient themselves are more likely to arrive at the primed diagnosis than physicians who were only given the symptoms of the patient.

I would instead change the last two sentences to the following:

According to Harvard Medical Practice Studies, 44,000–98,000 deaths in the United States each year are a result of safety incidents within the healthcare system.[39] Many of these incidents were not preventable, but were considered preventable after the fact, providing an example for hindsight bias.

I disagree with some of the other claims in this paragraph, especially the claim that "studies of injury or death rates as a result of error and virtually all incident review procedures used in healthcare today fail to control for hindsight bias, severely limiting the generalizability and integrity of the research." I would not use such strong claims against the research by calling its integrity "severely limited." Ackelleher17 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. The way it is worded right now does seem like hindsight bias is the cause of those 44-98,000 yearly deaths, of which many of those misdiagnoses were not actually preventable due to a strong priming effect. It would be foolish to think that we could eliminate all problems identified in hindsight, but there is a strong case to be made for learning from mistakes. Perhaps you could mention if/how current knowledge of hindsight bias will help prevent future false judgement in healthcare. Samliu365 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you all about this paragraph being misleading. As far as the change to the last two sentences, I think it is an improvement, but it is still a bit confusing. I think it may just be best to remove those two sentences. I fear that it seems that now the deaths would have been preventable, if we knew what we saw after the fact, in hindsight. But this is not what we are trying to say. Hindsight bias effects how you remember an event because of what you know after the fact. But I am not sure this example makes that clear. Perhaps you could say: after safety incidents, people often remember the accident to be more preventable than it actually was when it occurred. This is an example of hindsight bias. Annasjenkins (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)annasjenkins

I think the changes you have made are really good. The paragraph is not misleading after taking out some of those sentences. The last 3-4 sentences are informative, but I would suggest maybe combining them or making it more concise. Maybe target the last 2 sentences, "The safety management strategy tries to identify possible constraints when analyzing the decision making process throughout that case. This strategy relies much less on hindsight, which makes it less subject to hindsight bias (yet not immune to error)." It may help to do the same thing you did for the error elimination strategy by putting all the information in one sentence or trimming it a little bit. "The safety management strategy relies less on hindsight (less subject to hindsight bias) and identifies possible constraints during the decision making process of that case. However, it is not immune to error." Jh470 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Schizophrenia (Duke, Sp 2016)

I noticed that the schizophrenia section needs a little work. Perhaps one can completely remove the very first sentence of the second paragraph, as it seems like an out-of-place inclusion of the definition. Also, grammar- and syntax-wise it should be edited for more fluency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnwobu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for the roles

Three sections in a row there is "The Role of Surprise, The Role of Age, and The Role of Personality". If these 3 could start off with a sub-title introducing what is about to be expressed it would be easier to identify for the readers. Also a brief paragraph explaining how there can be different roles within hindsight bias would be a perfect lead in for the 3 roles expressed. TJ3Rahming (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Changes for Examples

I think the topics of the Examples paragraphs have good material in them however it is located all the way at the bottom of the page. I think moving that section higher up would allow people to fully comprehend the concept of hindsight bias. In addition, I think more examples can be added outside of the judicial system and the medical field such as some more basic examples that occur in normal everyday life; perhaps and example with a student exhibiting hindsight bias after taking an exam or something of that sort. Qharris232 (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Change the lede

I know that there has been a lot of discussion of the definition of hindsight bias and the content of the lede. And after all of that discussion, my sense is that the concept remains poorly defined and the lede is awkwardly phrased, difficult to understand, and not very helpful to a general audience. I propose the following (with the inclusion of sources in several places of course). I tried to keep as much of the current lede as possible while editing it for clarity and accessibility.

"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect, refers to the inclination to perceive events that have already occurred as having been more predictable than they actually were before they took place. As a result, people often believe, after an event has occurred, that they would have predicted, or perhaps even would have known with a high degree of certainty, what the outcome of an event would be before it had happened. Hindsight bias may cause distortions of our memories of what we knew and/or believed before an event occurred, and is a significant source of overconfidence regarding out ability to predict the outcomes of future events. Examples of hindsight bias can be seen in the writings of historians describing outcomes of battles, physicians recalling clinical trials, and in judicial systems as individuals attribute responsibility on the basis of the supposed predictability of accidents."

Comments before I make the change?Regutten (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. Revision of lede completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regutten (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The "Factors" section needs improvement

The first paragraph under the "Factors" heading is totally out of place. It has to be either deleted or moved (because it doesn't focus on a "factor") Much of the subsection "Affected bias" also doesn't fit under the "Factors" heading. Moreover, the term "Affected bias" itself doesn't make sense. I assume the proper term here would be "Affect bias".

So -- my plan (contingent upon any feedback I get here) is to:

1. Delete the first paragraph under "Factors" -- and move some reference to that study to the section on medical decision making.

2. Change the title of the "Affected bias" subsection to "Affect bias", then edit the first paragraph to improve its comprehensibility, and delete the second and third paragraphs from this subsection, moving some of the information from the third paragraph into a new major section called "Visual Hindsight Bias". The second paragraph will simply be deleted (in its current form it contributes nothing to the usefulness of the page for understanding hindsight bias). Regutten (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Additionaly, the "Personality" subsection suffers from a faulty reading of the cited article, which is apparent without even looking at the article itself. But double-checking the abstract, we can see that in the cited study "participants were presented with target pictures and were asked to judge each target's levels of the Big Five. Thereafter, they received feedback and had to recall their original judgments." - so the study is /not/ about an individual's big 5 personality as a factor affecting the formation of their hindsight bias (as the first sentence would have us believe), but about /other's/ personality as an object of hindsighted judgment (and if the judgment of all 5 traits is affected, it's rather pointless to even talk about it). The section does describe other things that are factors influential in the genesis of hindsight bias (i.e. the 'C's), so I am reluctant to delete the whole thing - but I'm afraid I don't care enough to actually rework the section. Hopefully someone who cares a tad bit more will come eventually. 88.118.119.246 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC) VG 2022.04.18

Brackets

The section "Factors" contained a number of oddly placed brackets around seemingly random words in the text, the way they are often used in quotes in order to clarify the meaning of the quote by supplying words that are inferred from the context of the quote. However, the sentences in question did not appear as quotations in the text of this article. My best guess would be that the text has been copy/pasted from a quote on another website without making it clear that it is a quote. Either way, I have removed the brackets, as they made zero sense in this article. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)