Eliminating the hindsight bias
Article Abstract:
Those who consider the likelihood of an event after it has occurred exaggerate their likelihood of having been able to predict that event in advance. We attempted to eliminate this hindsight bias among 194 neuropsychologists. Foresight subjects read a case history and were asked to estimate the probability of three different diagnoses. Subjects in each of the three hindsight groups were told that one of the three diagnoses was correct and were asked to state what probability they would have assigned to each diagnosis if they were making the original diagnosis. Foresight-reasons and hindsight-reasons subjects performed the same task as their foresight and hindsight counterparts, except they had to list one reason why each of the possible diagnoses might be correct. The frequency of subjects succumbing to the hindsight bias was lower in the hindsight-reasons groups than in the hindsight groups not asked to list reasons. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
Publication Name: Journal of Applied Psychology
Subject: Social sciences
ISSN: 0021-9010
Year: 1988
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
A likelihood-based model for validity generalization
Article Abstract:
The pair - r(subset i) n(subset i) - is an observed correlation coefficient, r(subset i), with sample size n(subset i). Given s independent pairs, each arising from a setting in which the test and criterion measurement are bivariate normal, a mixture model may be used to make the following inferences about the unknown population parameters: (a) The number t of different population correlation coefficients, p(subset j), j = 1, ..., t, supported by the data, (b) point values of the p(subset j), (c) the proportion of r(subset i) associated with each p(subset j), and (d) the variance among the p(subset j) all may be estimated from the s pairs. Maximum likelihood estimation equations are given. Approximate confidence intervals and tests may be constructed. Monte Carlo examples and a real-data example are provided. Procedures for correcting artifacts of range restriction and unreliability are briefly discussed. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)
Publication Name: Journal of Applied Psychology
Subject: Social sciences
ISSN: 0021-9010
Year: 1990
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Effects of training and information on the accuracy and reliability of job evaluations
- Abstracts: Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. part 2 Relative effect of applicant work experience and academic qualification on selection interview decisions: a study of between-sample generalizability
- Abstracts: Facilitating and inhibiting effects of job control and social support on stress outcomes and role behavior: a contingency model
- Abstracts: Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions
- Abstracts: Effects of race on interview ratings in a situational panel interview. Reliability and validity of the situational interview for a sales position