Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Hindsight bias decreases one's rational thinking because of when a person experiences strong emotions, which in turn decreases rational thinking. Another negative consequence of hindsight bias is the interference of one's ability to learn from experience, as a person is unable to look back on past decisions and learn from mistakes.
Hindsight bias: Sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, or the "Hindsight is 20/20" effect, is the tendency to see past events as having been predictable [99] before they happened. Impact bias: The tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states. [47] Information bias
The hindsight bias is defined as a tendency to change an opinion from an original thought to something different because of newly provided information. [10] Since 1973, when Fischhoff started the hindsight bias research, there has been a focus on two main explanations of the bias: distorted event probabilities and distorted memory for judgments of factual knowledge. [11]
The illusory truth effect has also been linked to hindsight bias, in which the recollection of confidence is skewed after the truth has been received. In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain statement is wrong can paradoxically cause it to feel right. [ 4 ]
There are few studies explicitly linking cognitive biases to real-world incidents with highly negative outcomes. Examples: One study [11] explicitly focused on cognitive bias as a potential contributor to a disaster-level event; this study examined the causes of the loss of several members of two expedition teams on Mount Everest on two consecutive days in 1996.
An example of the Ponzo illusion. Both of the horizontal yellow lines are the same length. The Ponzo illusion is a geometrical-optical illusion that takes its name from the Italian psychologist Mario Ponzo (1882–1960). Ponzo never claimed to have discovered it, and it is indeed present in earlier work.
Note they were asked only about the preceding week: the 15-year-olds were not asked to recall their emotions at age 12. It found evidence of a ‘rosy’ positive bias for the 12-year-olds. But this was the opposite for the 15-year-olds, who showed a 'blue' negative bias instead. [12]
In another example of near-total neglect of probability, Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) found that the typical subject was willing to pay $10 to avoid a 99% chance of a painful electric shock, and $7 to avoid a 1% chance of the same shock. They suggest that probability is more likely to be neglected when the outcomes are emotion-arousing.