![]() In Study 1 (N = 890), we replicated Experiment 2 in Fischhoff (1975), and found support for hindsight bias in retrospective judgments (dmean = 0.60). We conducted very close replications of two classic experiments of hindsight bias and a conceptual replication testing hindsight bias regarding the perceived replicability of hindsight bias. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to perceive an event outcome as more probable after being informed of that outcome. The results also indicate that children’s hindsight bias may interfere with their mind-reading processes, and that a mechanism to represent false beliefs is in operation before children become able to pass standard false belief tasks. These findings suggest that children used the surprising experiences aroused by irrational events as a cue to draw inferences about others’ and their own false beliefs. Although the proportion of correct answers for irrational tasks did not significantly exceed a chance level, consistency of answers on the irrational tasks was high, especially among 4-year-olds. Children in both age groups gave more correct answers on the irrational tasks than on the other two tasks. The other two tasks had a similar story structure to the “irrational task” did not include the surprising disappearance/appearance of objects. One of the tasks included irrational events (an object in a pot suddenly disappeared and another object appeared unexpectedly). Thirty-three 3-year-olds (3 4–4 3) and 36 4-year-olds (4 4–5 3) completed three kinds of false belief tasks. The present study investigated whether surprising outcomes promote young children’s understanding of false beliefs. However, did the manipulation backfire? We conclude that while the manipulation of thinking like a naïve child may have eliminated the bias, participants seemed to use an “adults know best” rule rather than accepting past naivete for themselves. When taking the perspective of a naïve peer, there were failures and successes when taking the perspective of a naïve child, there was an ultra-debiasing, or a reverse hindsight bias. ![]() ![]() Results showed a robust hindsight bias in all perspectives, and sporadic success at eliminating the bias. They were also asked to judge when they thought a naïve peer (Experiments 1 and 2), or a naïve child (Experiment 2) could identify the objects. Adult participants were given blurry-to-clear images incrementally until they were able to identify the object and were then re-presented with the same sequence of images and asked to make a judgment about when they had identified the item correctly the first time. Also known as the “knew it all along” bias, we aimed to diminish the bias by having individuals take the perspective of a naïve other, as a way of encouraging acceptance that they had, in fact, not known it all along. Hindsight bias is a phenomenon that occurs when outcome knowledge interferes with the ability to accurately recall judgments made in a previous, naïve state. We concluded support for hindsight bias in both retrospective and prospective judgments, and in evaluations of replication findings, and therefore call for establishing measures to address hindsight bias in valuations of replication work and interpreting research outcomes. We also included extensions examining surprise, confidence, and task difficulty, yet found mixed evidence with weak to no effects. In Study 3 (N = 520) we found strong support for hindsight bias regarding perceived likelihood of our replication of hindsight bias (d = 0.43 ~ 1.03). In Study 2 (N = 608), we replicated Experiment 1 in Slovic and Fischhoff (1977), and found support for hindsight bias in prospective judgments (dmean = 0.40). ![]() In Study 1 (N = 890), we replicated Experiment 2 in Fischhoff (1975), and found support for hindsight bias in retrospective judgments (dmean = 0.60). We conducted very close replications of two classic experiments testing the hindsight bias and conceptual replication to test hindsight bias regarding the replicability of hindsight bias. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to perceive an event outcome as more probable after being informed of that outcome. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |