Hindsight not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. 1975.
Hindsight not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. 1975.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/qhc.12.4.304
复制
发表时间：
2003-08-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fischhoff, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fischhoff, B
历史判断和非历史判断的一个主要区别是，历史判断通常知道事情的结果。在实验1中，收到这样的结果的知识被发现，以增加postdicted的可能性报告的事件和改变事件描述性数据的感知相关性，无论结果的可能性和真相的报告。然而，法官们基本上没有意识到结果知识对他们的看法的影响。结果，他们高估了他们在没有结果知识的情况下会知道的东西（实验2），以及其他人在没有结果知识的情况下实际知道的东西（实验3）。有人认为，这种缺乏认识会严重限制一个人判断或从过去学习的能力。
One major difference between historical and nonhistorical judgment is that the historical judge typically knows how things turned out. In Experiment 1, receipt of such outcome knowledge was found to increase the postdicted likelihood of reported events and change the perceived relevance of event descriptive data, regardless of the likelihood of the outcome and the truth of the report. Judges were, however, largely unaware of the effect that outcome knowledge had on their perceptions. As a result, they overestimated what they would have known without outcome knowledge (Experiment 2), as well as what others (Experiment 3) actually did know without outcome knowledge. It is argued that this lack of awareness can seriously restrict one’s ability to judge or learn from the past.