Advertisement

Learning from Experience: Coping with Hindsight Bias and Ambiguity

  • Baruch Fischhoff
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 30)

Abstract

Forecasts are made with foresight but evaluated with hindsight. Knowing what has happened can degrade these evaluations, reducing forecasters’ ability to learn from experience. Hindsight knowledge can also reduce the chances that forecasters will be judged fairly by those who rely on their work. Ambiguous forecasts create further barriers to evaluation and learning, making it hard to know just what they are predicting or how accurate they have been. Practitioners can reduce these threats by attending to how forecasts are formulated, communicated, and evaluated.

Keywords

Ambiguity communication confidence forecasting hindsight learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arkes, H. (2001), “Overconfidence in judgmental forecasting,” in J. S. Armstrong, Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Arkes, H.R., R. L. Wortmann, P.D. Saville and A. R. Harkness (1981), “Hindsight bias among physicians weighting the likelihood of diagnoses,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 252–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J.S. (1985), Long-Range Forecasting, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. Full text at hops.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, J.S. (2001), “Standards and practices for forecasting,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Beyth-Marom, R. (1982), “How probable is probable? Numerical translation of verbal probability expressions,” Journal of Forecasting, 1, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budescu, D.F. and T. S. Wallsten (1995), “Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence,” in J. R. Busemeyer, R. Hastie and D. L. Medin (eds.), Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. J. and C. F. Willham (1991), “The hindsight bias: A metaanalysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collopy, F., M. Adya and J. S. Armstrong (2001), “Expert systems for forecasting,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Crouch, E.A.C. and R. Wilson (1981), Risk/benefitAnalysis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Davies, M.F. (1992), “Field dependence and hindsight bias: Cognitive restructuring and the generation of reasons,” Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 58–74.Google Scholar
  10. Detmer, D. E., D. G. Fryback and K. Gassner (1978), “Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making,” Journal of Medical Education, 53, 682–683.Google Scholar
  11. Fischhoff, B. (1975), “Hindsight foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischhoff, B. (1977), “Perceived informativeness of facts,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischhoff, B. (1982a), “Debiasing,” in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 422–444.Google Scholar
  14. Fischhoff, B. (1982b), “For those condemned to study the past: Reflections on historical judgment,” in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–351.Google Scholar
  15. Fischhoff, B. (1988), “Judgmental aspects of forecasting: Needs and possible trends,” International Journal of Forecasting, 4, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischhoff, B. (1989), “Eliciting knowledge for analytical representation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 13, 448–461.Google Scholar
  17. Fischhoff, B. (1994), “What forecasts (seem to) mean,” International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischhoff, B. and R. Beyth (1975), “`I knew it would happen’-Remembered probabilities of once-future things,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischhoff, B., A. Bostrom and M. J. Quadrel (1997), “Risk perception and communication,” in R. Detels, J. McEwen and G. Omenn (eds.), Oxford Textbook of Public Health. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fischhoff, B., D. MacGregor and L. Blackshaw (1987), “Creating categories for databases,” International Journal of Man-Machine Systems, 27, 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff, B., S. Watson and C. Hope (1984), “Defining risk,” Policy Sciences, 17, 123139.Google Scholar
  22. Furby, L. (1973), “Interpreting regression toward the mean in developmental research,” Developmental Psychology, 8, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamm, R. M. (1991), “Selection of verbal probabilities,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 48, 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawkins, S. A. and R. Hastie (1990), “Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known,” Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoch, S. and G. Loewenstein (1989), “Outcome feedback: Hindsight and information,”Google Scholar
  26. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 605–619. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979), “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk,” Econometrica, 47, 263–281.Google Scholar
  27. Koriat, A., S. Lichtenstein and B. Fischhoff (1980), “Reasons for confidence,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichtenstein, S. and J. R. Newman (1967), “Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities,” Psychonomic Science, 9, 563–564.Google Scholar
  29. McIntyre, S. and P. West (1992), “What does the phrase ”safer sex“ mean to you? Understanding among Glaswegian 18 year olds in 1990,” AIDS, 7, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merz, J., M. Druzdzel and D. J. Mazur (1991), “Verbal expressions of probability in informed consent litigation,” Medical Decision Making, 11, 273–281.Google Scholar
  31. Merz, J., B. Fischhoff, D. J. Mazur and P. S. Fischbeck (1993), “Decision-analytic approach to developing standards of disclosure for medical informed consent,” Journal of Toxics and Liability, 15, 191–215.Google Scholar
  32. Morgan, M. G. and M. Henrion (1990), Uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Morwitz, V.G. (2001), “Methods for forecasting sales from intentions and probability data,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Murphy, A. H. (1993), “What is a good forecast? An essay on the nature of goodness in weather forecasting,” Weather and Forecasting, 8, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murphy, A. H., S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff and R. L. Winkler, (1980), “Misinterpretations of precipitation probability forecasts,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 61, 695–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council (1996), Understanding Risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1974), Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), Washington DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  38. Ofir, C. and D. Mazursky (1997), “Does a surprising outcome reinforce or reverse the hind- sight bias?” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slovic, P. and B. Fischhoff (1977), “On the psychology of experimental surprises,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 544–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schriver, K.A. (1989), “Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32, 238–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stewart, T. (2001), “Improving reliability of judgmental forecasts,” in J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  42. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,” Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. von Winterfeldt, D. and W. Edwards (1986), Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baruch Fischhoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social and Decision Sciences and Department of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations