Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Scholarly Works (4 results)

  • Thesis
  • Peer Reviewed
UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations (2019)

The hindsight bias may not be as robust as previously believed. Also known as the “knew-it-all-along effect” (Fischhoff, 1975) the hindsight bias refers to the inability for individuals to remember their previous state of knowledge after learning an outcome. Researchers have found people fall victim to hindsight biases in a variety of domains, including general knowledge (Fischoff, 1977; Wood, 1978), medical decisions (Arkes, Wortmann, Saville, & Harkness, 1981), and political outcomes (Fischhoff & Beyth, 1975). Multiple failures to debias, with methods including informing participants about the bias (Fischhoff, 1977) and manipulating participant perspective (Wood, 1978) further grew the reputation for the strength of this bias. However, we must interpret older results in the behavioral sciences with new perspective on the importance of sample size and statistical power (Ioannidis, 2005). This dissertation proposes to investigate when and why hindsight bias fails to appear, and what it means for the psychological processes underlying the hindsight bias, and more broadly, the interpretation of older psychological research.

    Cover page: Boundaries of the Hindsight Bias
    • Article
    • Peer Reviewed
    UC Berkeley Previously Published Works (2020)
    Overconfident people should be surprised that they are so often wrong. Are they? Three studies examined the relationship between confidence and surprise in order to shed light on the psychology of overprecision in judgment. Participants reported ex-ante confidence in their beliefs, and after receiving accuracy feedback, they then reported ex-post surprise. Results show that more ex-ante confidence produces less ex-post surprise for correct answers; this relationship reverses for incorrect answers. However, this sensible pattern only holds for some measures of confidence; it fails for confidence-interval measures. The results can help explain the robust durability of overprecision in judgment.
      Cover page: Overprecision increases subsequent surprise.
      • Article
      • Peer Reviewed
      UC Berkeley Previously Published Works (2022)
        Cover page: Correction for O’Donnell et al., Empirical audit and review and an assessment of evidentiary value in research on the psychological consequences of scarcityCreative Commons 'BY' version 4.0 license
        • Article
        • Peer Reviewed
        UC Berkeley Previously Published Works (2021)
        Empirical audit and review is an approach to assessing the evidentiary value of a research area. It involves identifying a topic and selecting a cross-section of studies for replication. We apply the method to research on the psychological consequences of scarcity. Starting with the papers citing a seminal publication in the field, we conducted replications of 20 studies that evaluate the role of scarcity priming in pain sensitivity, resource allocation, materialism, and many other domains. There was considerable variability in the replicability, with some strong successes and other undeniable failures. Empirical audit and review does not attempt to assign an overall replication rate for a heterogeneous field, but rather facilitates researchers seeking to incorporate strength of evidence as they refine theories and plan new investigations in the research area. This method allows for an integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to review and enables the growth of a cumulative science.
          Cover page: Empirical audit and review and an assessment of evidentiary value in research on the psychological consequences of scarcity.
          Top