Visibility bias , also known as that know-it-all-together effects or creeping determinism , is a trend, after an event occurs, to see the event has been predictable, although there is little or no objective basis for predicting it. This is a multifaceted phenomenon that can affect different stages of design, process, context, and situation. Biased bias can cause memory distortion, where recollection and reconstruction of content can lead to incorrect theoretical results. It has been argued that its effect can lead to extreme methodological problems while attempting to analyze, understand, and interpret results in experimental studies. A basic example of a review bias is when, after seeing the results of an unexpected event, someone believes that he "knows everything". Such examples exist in the historian's writings that explain the outcome of the battle, the physician recalling the clinical trial, and in the judicial system that attempts to link the responsibility and certainty of the accident.
Video Hindsight bias
Histori
The back bias, though unnamed, is not a new concept when it emerged in psychological research in the 1970s. In fact, it has been indirectly explained several times by historians, philosophers, and doctors. In 1973, Baruch Fischhoff attended a seminar in which Paul E. Meehl expressed an observation that doctors often overestimated their ability to predict the outcome of a particular case, as they claimed to have known it all along. Baruch, a graduate student of psychology at the time, saw an opportunity in psychological research to explain this observation.
In the early seventies, heuristic and biased inquiry was a major field of psychological study, led by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. The two heuristics identified by Tversky and Kahneman are crucial in the development of sunscreen bias; this is the availability of heuristic and heuristic representativeness. In the elaboration of this heuristic, Beyth and Fischhoff designed the first experiment that directly tested the hindsight bias. They asked participants to assess the possibility of some results of US President Richard Nixon's upcoming visit to Beijing (later romanized as Peking) and Moscow. Some time after President Nixon's return, participants are required to recall (or reconstruct) the probabilities they have set for each possible outcome, and their perception of the likelihood of any greater or exaggerated outcome for the event that actually happened. This research is often referred to in the definition of back bias, and the title of the paper, "I know it will happen", may have contributed to the hardsight bias that can be exchanged with the phrase "knowing all" hypotheses.
In 1975, Fischhoff developed another method of investigating the back bias, which at the time was called the "creeping determinism hypothesis". This method involves giving participants a short story with four possible outcomes, one of which is said to be true, and then asked to specify the possibility of any particular outcome. Participants often specify the possibility of a higher incidence to which the result they are saying is true. Relative left unmodified, this method is still used in psychological and behavioral experiments that investigate the aspects of reverse bias. Having evolved from the heuristics of Tversky and Kahneman to a hypothesis of creeping determinism and finally into the back bias as we know it, this concept has many practical applications and is still at the forefront of current research. Recent studies involving backward bias have investigated the effect of age on bias, how to look back can affect interference and confusion, and how it may affect banking and investment strategies.
Maps Hindsight bias
Factor
Sleep disorder bias has been supported in tests performed with examples of medical procedures and outcomes for patients. Subjects were given randomized, randomized or neutral procedures and patient outcomes, to interpret malpractice levels by physicians. The results showed that higher rates of malpractice were reported by the subjects when they were told there were poor patient outcomes than neutral patient outcomes, even when presented with the exact same procedure. This supports the experimental hypothesis that the bias will increase when adverse outcomes are presented, even if it is wrong, and it is considered that treatment is ignored only when the outcome is poor. During the experiment, the subject used the phrase "should have been clear" several times, reminiscent of one of the back bias' other names: the phenomenon "I know it all".
Bias affected
Plural bias is not only influenced by whether the results are favorable or not good, but also the severity of the negative results. In malpractice settings, the worse the negative results, the more dramatic the jury's bias is. In highly objective cases, the decision will be based on the standard of care of the physician and not the result of treatment; However, studies show that cases ending with severe negative results such as death produce a higher bias bias. In 1996, LaBine filed a scenario in which a psychiatric patient told a therapist that they were considering harming another person whose therapist did not warn of possible harm. Three participants were given three possible outcomes where the threatened individual received no injuries, minor injuries, and serious injuries and was later asked to determine whether the doctor would be considered negligent. Participants who received the serious injury category not only rated the therapist as being negligent but also rated the attack as more predictable. Participants in the category of injuries and minor injuries are more likely to see the therapist's actions as natural.
In tests for back bias, a person is asked to remember certain events from the past or recall some descriptive information they have tested before. Between the first test and the final test, they are given correct information about the event or knowledge. In the last test, he will report that they know the answer as long as they have actually changed their answer to match the correct information provided after the initial test. Dark bias has been found to occur in both memory for the situation experienced (events that people are familiar with) and hypothetical situations (creating events where one should imagine being involved).
Recently, it has been found that reverse bias is also present in recall with visual material. When tested on an initially blurred image, the subject learns what the actual image is after the fact and they will then remember a clearly recognizable image. There is little research on the phenomenon of visual sight bias. One experiment conducted by Muhm et al. occurs over a period of six years and has more than 4,618 participants. Each participant receives chest radiography every 4 months. Each radiograph is reviewed by two radiologists and a respiratory physician to determine if there is a problem. During the experiment, 92 chest tumors were found in some participants. When doctors reviewed previous radiographs from participants who developed tumors, they decided that tumor evidence was present even before it was identified. In other words, after finding the tumor, the doctor determined the presence of the tumor was apparent in previous radiographs, although they did not realize it before.
Role of surprise
The role of shock can help explain the flexibility of hindsight bias. Surprises affect how the mind reconstructs pre-results predictions in three ways:
- S is a direct metacognitive heuristic to estimate the distance between the results and the prediction.
- Surprises trigger a deliberate process of making feelings.
- Surprises imply this process by enhancing the retrieval of shock-congruence information and expectation-based hypothesis testing.
Pezzo's formulation model supports two contradictory ideas of surprising results. The result may indicate a lower backward bias or perhaps an inverse effect, in which the individual believes the outcome is not possible at all, or the result can cause an enlarged bias bias to have a stronger effect. The sense process is triggered by initial shock. If the sensory process is incomplete and sensory information is not detected or encoded, the sensation is experienced as a surprise and the bias behind has a gradual reduction. When there is a lack of sense processing, reverse biased bias phenomenon is made. Without the sense process being present, there is no residual thought about the shock, thus leading to the unbelieving sensation of results as a possibility.
Role of personality
Along with the emotion of surprise, personality traits affect the bias backward. The new integrative lens model is an approach to knowing bias and accuracy in human conclusions because of the personality traits of each. This model integrates in accurate personality assessment and backward effects as an additional product of knowledge updates.
During the study, three processes demonstrated the potential to explain the occurrence of hindsight effects in personality assessment:
- Changes in individual cue perception
- More valid signaling changes
- Changes in consistency with which one applies sign knowledge
After two studies, it is clear that there is a backward effect for each of the "Big Five" personality dimensions. Evidence was found that both the use of more valid cues and changes in gesture perception, but did not change consistency with cue knowledge applied to the effects of side effects. During both studies, participants were presented with target images and asked to rate each level of the Big Five.
Age role
It is more difficult to test the bias behind children than adults because the verbal methods used in experiments in adults are too complicated for children to understand, let alone the measurement bias. There are several experimental procedures created with visual identification to test children in a way that they can hold. Methods with visual images begin by displaying blurred images that become more obvious over time. In some conditions, the subject knows what the final object is, and the other does not. In cases where the subject knows what the shape of the object will be when the image is clear, they are required to estimate the amount of time that other participants of the same age will take to guess what the object is. Because of the back bias, the estimated time is often much lower than the actual time because participants use their knowledge while making their estimates.
The types of research have presented results which show that the bias of the review reveals both children and adults. Biased bias in adults and children shares the core cognitive constraints. The constraint is a tendency to bias on a person's current knowledge while trying to recall or reason about a more naive cognitive state - regardless of whether the more naïve state is his or her own naà ¢ nfenia status. Children have a theory of mind, which is their mental reasoning. The bias of openness is a fundamental issue in taking cognitive perspectives. After reviewing the developmental literature on hindsight bias and other limitations, it was found that some limitations of children in the theory of mind can be derived from the same core component as hindsight bias. This key factor gives rise to the underlying mechanism. A developmental approach is required for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of backward bias in social cognition.
Bernstein et al. running experiments that determined that reverse bias was more common in preschoolers, decreased in older childhood and adulthood, and then increased again older adults. The results show that preschool children often show a backward bias by confusing their original answers with information presented to them later on. This makes them believe they have known it all along. Older adults show a backward bias by forgetting their original answers and using the information presented later on to build new answers. Older children and adults show different types of back bias when presented with identical tasks. Once presented with new information, older children and adults often adjust their answers but do not formulate or adopt completely new ideas. Regardless of age, all participants claim to know more answers than they actually do.
Effects
Hearing redirects
Another topic that affects the function of rear bias is the function of human hearing. To test the effect of hearing loss on hindsight bias, four trials were completed. Experiment one includes ordinary words, in which a low-pass filter is used to reduce the amplitude for consonant sounds; thus, making the words more degraded. In naïve identification assignments, participants presented a warning tone before hearing the words degraded. In the rear estimation task, a warning tone is presented before a clear word is followed by a degraded version of the word. Experiment two includes words with explicit warnings of the back bias. It follows the same procedure as the one experiment; however, the participants are notified and asked not to resolve the same error. Trial three includes words full of degraded words rather than individual words. Experiment four included less degraded words to make words easier to understand and identify to participants.
Using this different technique, it offers different detection ranges and evaluates the ecological validity of its effects. In each trial, the back estimates exceeded the naïve identification level. Therefore, knowing the identity of words causes people to exaggerate the ability of naïf others to identify the spoken word versions with highly degraded word rates. People who know the outcome of an event tend to overestimate their own initial knowledge or other ill-fated knowledge of the event. As a result, speakers tend to exaggerate the clarity of their messages while listeners tend to exaggerate their understanding of ambiguous messages. This miscommunication comes from the back bias, which then creates an inevitable feeling. Overall, this hearing hearing bias occurs despite attempts by people to avoid it.
Cognitive model
To understand how one can easily change the foundation of knowledge and beliefs for events after receiving new information, three cognitive models of backward bias have been reviewed. The three models are SARA (Selective Activation and Reconstructive Reconstruction), RAFT (reconstruction after feedback by taking the best) and CMT (causal model theory). SARA and RAFT focus on distortion or changes in memory processes, while CMT focuses on the assessment of the probability of back bias.
The SARA model, created by RÃÆ'¼diger Pohl and colleagues, explains the rear bias for descriptive information in hypothetical memories and situations. SARA assumes that people have a series of images to draw their memories. They suffer from a back bias due to selective activation or bias sampling of the collection. Basically, people only remember small, select the amount of information - and when asked to remember it later, use a biased image to support their own opinion about the situation. Collection of images originally processed in the brain when first experienced. When remembered, this image is reactivated, and the mind can edit and change the memory, which occurs behind the bias when new and correct information is presented, making people believe that this new information when remembered at other times is the original memory of the people. Because of this reactivation in the brain, a more permanent memory footprint can be made. The new information acts as an anchor of memory that causes retrieval impairment.
The RAFT model explains the back bias by comparison of objects using a knowledge-based probability then applying an interpretation to that probability. When given two choices, a person remembers information on both topics and makes assumptions based on how well they find the information. The case example is someone who compares the size of two cities. If they know a city well (for example because it has a popular sports team or through personal history) and know less about the others, their mental cues for a more popular urban enhancement. They then "take the best" option in their judgment about their own probabilities. For example, they recognize a city for knowing its sports team, and so they assume that the city has the highest population. "Take the best" refers to the gesture that is seen as the most valid and the support for one's interpretation. RAFT is a by-product of adaptive learning. Feedback information updates one's knowledge base. This can cause a person to be unable to retrieve the initial information, because information cues have been replaced by cues that they think are more appropriate. The "best" gesture has been replaced, and the person only remembers the most likely answer and believes that they think this is the best point all the time.
Both SARA and RAFT descriptions include memory impairment or cognitive distortion caused by information feedback and memory reconstruction.
CMT is a non-formal theory based on work by many researchers to create a collaborative process model for hindsight bias that involves event outcomes. People try to understand an event that has not changed as they expected by creating a causal reason for the initial conditions of the event. This can give the person the idea that the outcome of the event can not be avoided and nothing can happen to prevent it from happening. CMT can be caused by a discrepancy between a person's expectations of the event and the reality of the outcome. They consciously want to understand what has happened and selectively retrieve the memory that supports the current results. Causal attributions can be motivated by a desire to feel more positive about outcomes, and perhaps themselves.
Do people lie or do they cheat themselves by believing they know the right answer? These models will show that memory distortions and personal biases play a role.
Memory distortion
The visual bias has similarities with other memory distortions, such as misinformation effects and fake autobiographical memories. The effects of misinformation occur after an event is witnessed; new information received after the facts affect how the person remembers the event, and can be called post-event misinformation. This is an important issue with eyewitness testimony. An erroneous autobiographical memory occurs when outside advice or additional information is provided to distort and alter the event's memory; this can also cause false memory syndrome. Sometimes this can lead to the creation of new memories that are completely wrong and have not happened yet.
These three memory distortions contain a three-step procedure. The details of each procedure are different, but all three can result in psychological manipulation and memory changes. Stage one differs between the three paradigms, though all involve an event, events that have occurred (the effects of misinformation), events that have not yet occurred (fake autobiographical memories), and judgments made by someone about an event to remember (rear bias). Phase two consists of more information received by the person after the event occurred. The new information provided in the back bias is correct and is forwarded to the person, while additional information for the other two memory distortions is wrong and is presented indirectly and may be manipulative. The third stage consists of recalling the initial information. The person should remember the original information with the back bias and the effects of misinformation, while people who have fake autobiographical memory are expected to remember wrong information as actual memory.
Cavillo (2013) examines whether there is a relationship between the amount of time participants give to respond and their bias levels when considering their initial assessment. The results show that there is actually a relationship; the rear refractive index is greater among participants who are asked to respond quickly than among participants allowing more time to respond.
To create a fake autobiographical memory, the person must believe in unreal memory. To look real, information must be influenced by their own personal judgment. There is no real episode of an event to remember, so the construction of this memory must be logical for that person's knowledge base. Visible bias and misinformation information given specific times and events; this is called the episodic memory process. These two memory distortions use a memory-based mechanism that involves a modified memory trace. Hippocampus activation occurs when the episodic memory is remembered. The memory is then available for changes by new information. People believe that the information remembered is the original memory footprint, not the modified memory. This new memory is made from accurate information, and therefore the person does not have much motivation to admit that they are wrong at first by remembering their original memories. This can lead to forgetting motivation.
Motivated forgot
Following the negative results of a situation, people are unwilling to accept responsibility. Instead of accepting their role in the event, they may see themselves caught in an unexpected situation with them so as not to be the culprit (this is called defensive processing) or see the unavoidable situation with it because it becomes nothing that can done to prevent it (this is retroactive pessimism). The defensive process involves fewer back biases, because they do not know anything about the event. Retroactive pessimism exploits a backward bias after an undesired negative result. Events in life can be difficult to control or predict. It is not surprising that people want to see themselves in a more positive light and do not want to be responsible for situations they can change. This causes a backward bias in the form of retroactive pessimism to inhibit upward counterfactual thinking, rather than interpreting results as giving in to the inevitable destiny.
Inhibition of memory that prevents a person from remembering what really happened can cause failure to accept mistakes, and therefore can make a person unable to learn and grow to prevent repetition of errors. Biased bias can also lead to over-belief in decisions without considering other options. Such people see themselves as people who remember correctly, even if they just forget that they are wrong. Avoiding responsibility is common among human populations. The examples are discussed below to show the regularity and severity of bias in the community.
Consequences of back bias
Biased bias has both positive and negative consequences. Bias also plays a role in the decision-making process in the medical field.
Positive
The positive consequence of a back bias is an increase in one's confidence and performance, provided that the bias distortion makes sense and does not create excessive trust. Another positive consequence is that one's self-belief in their knowledge and decision-making, even if it ultimately becomes a bad decision, can be beneficial to others; letting others experience new things or learn from those who make bad decisions.
Negative
The visual bias reduces the rational thinking of a person because when a person experiences strong emotions, which in turn diminish rational thinking. Another negative consequence of sunscreen bias is the interference of one's ability to learn from experience, because one can not look back on previous decisions and learn from mistakes. The third consequence is a decrease in sensitivity to the victim by the person who caused the error. The person is demoralizing the victim and does not allow for correction of behavior and actions.
Medical decision-making
A biased prerequisite may lead to overconfidence and malpractice in the case of a physician. Biased bias and overconfidence are often associated with the number of years of experience the doctor has. After the procedure, the doctor may have a "know all the time" attitude, when in fact they do not really know it. In an effort to avoid a back bias, doctors use computer-based decision support systems that help doctors diagnose and treat their patients correctly and accurately.
Attempts to lower
Research shows that people still show a backward bias even when they are aware of it or have intentions to eradicate it. There is no solution to eliminate reverse bias in its totality, but only a way to reduce it. Some of these include taking into account alternative explanations or opening one's mind to different perspectives. In terms of auditory communication, the speaker will try to provide more clarity in the delivery and the listener may seek further clarification.
The only observable way to reduce the observational bias in testing is to get participants to think about how alternative hypotheses can be true. As a result, the participants doubted the correct hypothesis and reported that he would not vote for it.
Given the fact that the researcher's efforts to eliminate the overall back bias have failed, some believe there may be a combination of motivational and automated processes in cognitive reconstruction. Incentives encourage participants to use more effort to recover even weak memory footprints. This idea supports the theory of causal models and the use of understanding to understand the outcome of events.
Mental illness
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is an example of a disorder that directly affects the hindsight bias. Individuals with schizophrenia are stronger influenced by back bias than individuals from the general population.
The effect of backside bias is a paradigm that shows how recent knowledge affects past information reminders. Recent acquired knowledge has strange but powerful influences on schizophrenic individuals with respect to previously learned information. New information combined with past memory rejection may override delusional behaviors and beliefs, usually found in patients suffering from schizophrenia. This can cause the wrong memory, which can cause backward thinking and believe in knowing something they did not do. People who are susceptible to delusions suffering from schizophrenia can wrongly jump to conclusions. Jumping to conclusions can lead backward, which greatly affects delusional belief in individuals with schizophrenia. In many studies, cognitive functional deficits in schizophrenic individuals interfere with their ability to represent and uphold the contextual process.
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is re-experiencing and avoidance of stressors, emotions, and trauma-related memories from past events or events that have a cognitive dramatizing effect on a person. PTSD can be associated with functional impairment of the prefrontal cortex structure (PFC). Cognitive processing dysfunction of the context and abnormality of PTSD patients can affect the thinking that goes on behind, as in combat soldiers who feel that they can change the outcome of events in war. PFC and dopamine systems are part of the brain that can be responsible for interference in the processing of cognitive control of context information. PFC is notorious for controlling the thought process behind the bias that something will happen when it does not. Brain damage in certain brain regions may also affect the thinking process of an individual who may be involved in the back thinking.
Cognitive flashback and other related features of a traumatic event can trigger severe stress and negative emotions such as unforgivable guilt. For example, research was conducted on guilt characteristics associated with war veteran trauma with chronic PTSD 8. Despite limited research, significant data suggest that the back bias has an effect on the veterans' private perception of warfare from mistakes, in terms of guilt and responsibility answer from traumatic war events. They blame themselves, and, in the back, see that they can prevent what's going on.
Example
Health care system
Accidents tend to occur in every human effort, but accidents occurring within the health care system appear to be more prominent and severe because of the enormous effect on the lives of those involved, sometimes resulting in the death of a patient. In the health care system, there are a number of methods in which certain cases where accidents happen are reviewed by others who already know the outcome of the case. These methods include morbidity and mortality conferences, autopsy, case analysis, medical malpractice claims analysis, staff interviews, and even patient observation. Biased bias has been shown to cause difficulties in measuring errors in this case. Many of these mistakes are deemed to be preventable after the facts, clearly indicating the existence and significance of the reverse bias in this field. There are two sides to the debate in how this case review should be approached to evaluate the best past cases: eradication strategies and safety management strategies. Eraser removal strategy aims to find the cause of the error, relying heavily on the back (hence more subject to back bias). The safety management strategy is less dependent on the back (less subject to back bias) and identifies possible constraints during the decision-making process of the case. However, it is not immune to error.
Justice system
Biased bias leads to higher standards in court. Defenders are particularly vulnerable to this effect, because their actions are being investigated by the jury. Because of the back bias, the defendants are considered capable of preventing bad results. Although much stronger for the defendants, the back bias also affects the plaintiffs. In cases where there is a risk assumption, the back bias can contribute to judges who consider the event to be riskier because of poor outcomes. This may cause the jury to feel that the plaintiff should be more careful in the situation. Both of these effects can be minimized if the lawyer places the jury in a forward-looking position rather than looking back through the use of language and timelines. Judges and jurors tend to mistakenly regard negative events as something more predictable than what actually happened then, when looking at the situation after the facts in court. Encouraging people to explicitly think about counterfactuals is an effective way to reduce backward bias. In other words, people become less attached to actual results and more open to consider alternative lines of reasoning before the event. Judges involved in fraudulent transfer litigation cases are also subject to reverse biases, resulting in unfair advantages to plaintiffs, indicating that the judges are not the only ones sensitive to the effects of collision biases in the courtroom.
See also
- Knowledge curse
- Columbus Egg
- Historian error
- Memory matching
References
Further reading
- Quotes from: David G. Myers, Explore Social Psychology . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, p. 15-19. (More discussion of Paul Lazarsfeld's experimental questions.)
- Ken Fisher's Concept, Forecasting (Macro and Micro) and the Future, on Market Analysis (4/7/06)
- Iraq War Naysayers May Have Visionary Bias . Shankar Vedantam. The Washington Post .
- Why Vision Can Ruin the Future . Paul Goodwin. A look into the future: International Journal of Applied Forecast , Spring 2010.
- Social Cognition (2007) Vol. 25, Special Edition: The Hindsight Bias
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments