Running head: Effects of Task Difficulty on Hindsight Bias When the Shoe Won

18 Pages·2012·0.12 MB·English

by  Hugh Foley

Running
 head:
 Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias

When
 the
 Shoe
 Won’t
 Fit:
 The
 Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias

002390197

Skidmore
 College
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  2

Abstract

  We
 studied
 hindsight
 biases
 in
 the
 context
 of
 insight
 tasks,
 specifically

anagram
 problems.
 We
 targeted
 the
 relationship
 between
 task
 difficulty
 and
 level
 of

hindsight
 effects
 in
 order
 to
 understand
 why
 a
 positive
 correlation
 exists
 between

these
 two
 variables.
 We
 tested
 each
 participant
 in
 both
 worksight
 and
 hindsight

conditions,
 manipulating
 task
 difficulty
 level
 by
 using
 a
 variety
 of
 four-­‐,
 six-­‐,
 and

eight-­‐letter
 anagrams
 in
 each
 condition.
 Participants’
 ratings
 indicated
 that
 their

overestimations
 in
 the
 hindsight
 condition
 of
 the
 abilities
 of
 ignorant
 individuals
 to

have
 solved
 the
 anagram
 increased
 with
 task
 difficulty,
 but
 that
 their

underestimation
 of
 the
 anagram
 difficulties
 in
 the
 hindsight
 condition
 remained

stagnant.
 By
 examining
 the
 interesting
 inconsistency
 of
 these
 results,
 we
 were
 able

to
 more
 closely
 examine
 the
 validity
 of
 current
 hypotheses
 on
 the
 possible
 cause
 of

hindsight,
 including
 the
 theory
 of
 mind,
 self-­‐esteem
 protection,
 and
 memory
 error

hypotheses.
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  3

Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias

  Have
 you
 ever
 been
 told
 to
 “put
 yourself
 in
 someone
 else’s
 shoes”?
 Were
 you

able
 to
 do
 it?
 This
 commonly
 used
 metaphor
 is
 another
 way
 of
 asking
 you
 to
 think

how
 another
 person
 is
 experiencing
 a
 situation.
 It
 is
 a
 more
 practical
 way
 of
 asking

you
 to
 put
 yourself
 in
 the
 mind
 of
 another
 person.
 Put
 this
 way,
 the
 task
 appears
 far

more
 daunting.
 And,
 in
 fact,
 as
 extensive
 research
 on
 hindsight
 bias
 reveals,
 it
 is

often
 more
 challenging
 then
 we
 think
 to
 place
 ourselves
 outside
 of
 our
 own
 minds

and
 hypothesize
 about
 the
 experience
 of
 another’s.

  Hindsight
 bias
 is
 a
 psychological
 phenomenon
 in
 which
 an
 individual
 who

knows
 the
 outcome
 of
 an
 event
 or
 the
 answer
 to
 a
 problem
 overestimates
 the
 ability

of
 other
 individuals,
 as
 well
 as
 him
 or
 herself,
 to
 have
 foreseen
 the
 outcome
 or

solution.
 Hindsight
 bias
 has
 been
 studied
 in
 a
 variety
 of
 contexts
 and
 with
 a
 variety

of
 methods,
 including
 recollection
 of
 judgments
 before
 the
 occurrence
 or
 non-­‐
occurrence
 of
 a
 significant
 event
 (Pease
 et
 al.,
 2003),
 the
 identification
 of
 objects
 in

gradually
 clarifying
 photographs
 (Bernstein
 et
 al.
 2004),
 and
 the
 solving
 of
 insight

problems,
 such
 as
 anagrams
 (Hom
 and
 Ciaramitaro,
 2001).
 All
 of
 these
 studies

revealed
 that
 informed
 individuals
 tended
 to
 have
 difficulties
 putting
 themselves
 in

the
 shoes
 of
 other
 hypothetical,
 uninformed
 individuals.
 Participants
 seemed
 unable

to
 ignore
 their
 knowledge
 of
 an
 outcome
 or
 answer
 and
 consequently
 overestimated

the
 abilities
 of
 an
 ignorant
 individual
 to
 have
 foreseen
 them.

  The
 evidence
 these
 and
 other
 studies
 have
 provided
 for
 the
 existence
 of

hindsight
 bias
 directs
 our
 attention
 to
 the
 consequences
 of
 this
 bias
 in
 our
 society.
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  4

The
 most
 obvious
 consequence
 is
 that
 this
 tendency
 to
 overestimate
 the
 abilities
 of

others
 when
 one
 already
 knows
 the
 answer
 can
 lead
 to
 unfair
 and
 ignorant

expectations
 in
 educational
 institutions
 and
 work
 settings.
 In
 these
 situations,
 there

is
 often
 a
 more
 knowledgeable
 professors
 or
 boss
 to
 whom
 the
 solution
 to
 a

problem
 is
 obvious
 to.
 This
 may
 cause
 them
 to
 overestimate
 the
 abilities
 of
 their

students
 or
 employees
 to
 find
 the
 same
 solution,
 resulting
 in
 unreasonable

deadlines
 and
 minimal
 guidance.
 Hom
 and
 Ciaramitoro
 (2001),
 in
 their
 experiment

on
 hindsight
 bias
 through
 the
 use
 of
 anagrams,
 indentified
 another
 consequence
 of

the
 hindsight
 bias.
 They
 found,
 through
 comparing
 participants
 in
 both
 worksight

(in
 which
 no
 anagram
 answer
 was
 provided)
 and
 hindsight
 (in
 which
 the
 anagram

answer
 was
 provided)
 conditions
 that
 those
 effected
 by
 the
 hindsight
 bias
 were

more
 confident
 in
 their
 future
 abilities
 to
 solve
 anagrams.
 This
 is
 another
 effect
 of

hindsight
 bias
 that
 could
 help
 improve
 the
 performance
 of
 students
 and
 employees.

If
 individuals
 had
 more
 confidence
 in
 their
 abilities
 when
 approaching
 challenging

tasks,
 perhaps
 the
 experience
 would
 be
 less
 stressful
 and
 the
 quality
 of
 performance

would
 be
 better.

  Considering
 these
 consequences
 of
 hindsight
 bias,
 we
 can
 see
 how
 valuable
 it

would
 be
 to
 know
 how
 to
 manipulate
 this
 phenomenon.
 Hom
 and
 Ciaramitoro

(2004)
 found
 that
 hindsight
 bias
 is
 indeed
 susceptible
 to
 manipulation.
 The
 five

experiments
 within
 their
 study
 varied
 in
 elements
 such
 as
 time
 allocation
 and
 order

of
 conditions,
 all
 of
 which
 resulted
 in
 different
 levels
 of
 hindsight
 consequences.

Therefore
 we
 know
 that
 it
 is
 possible,
 through
 different
 methods,
 to
 manipulate
 the

effects
 of
 hindsight
 bias.
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  5

 But
 whether
 one
 wants
 to
 decrease
 or
 increase
 the
 effects
 of
 the
 hindsight

bias,
 one
 first
 needs
 to
 understand
 what
 causes
 the
 hindsight
 bias
 and
 what
 aspects

of
 it
 are
 subject
 to
 manipulation.
 Memory
 error,
 or
 the
 idea
 that
 an
 individual’s

actual
 recollection
 of
 their
 own
 state
 of
 ignorance
 is
 tainted
 by
 the
 new
 information,

is
 a
 widely
 agreed
 upon
 component
 of
 hindsight
 bias.
 The
 memory
 error
 hypothesis

It
 is
 the
 bias
 recollection
 that
 leads
 to
 the
 inaccurate
 speculations
 of
 an
 ignorant

individual’s
 abilities
 (Pease
 et
 al.,
 2003).
 Many
 studies
 have
 also
 hypothesized
 about

other
 components
 of
 hindsight
 bias,
 though,
 finding
 that
 memory
 error
 did
 not

always
 explain
 all
 of
 the
 effects
 of
 the
 phenomenon
 (Pease
 et
 al.,
 2003).
 Researchers

have
 speculated
 about
 other
 motivational,
 developmental,
 and
 cognitive
 causes.

Pease
 et
 al.
 (2003),
 in
 their
 study
 of
 the
 effects
 of
 hindsight
 bias
 on
 participants’

abilities
 to
 recall
 their
 own
 predictions
 of
 event
 outcomes,
 proposed
 the
 self-­‐esteem

protection
 hypothesis.
 This
 hypothesis
 suggests
 that
 individuals
 are
 motivated
 by
 a

desire
 to
 appear
 less
 foolish
 or
 more
 knowledgeable,
 and
 will
 therefore
 report

having
 predicted
 the
 outcome
 of
 the
 event
 when,
 in
 reality,
 they
 had
 not.
 Applied
 to

other
 studies,
 this
 hypothesis
 could
 also
 explain
 why
 individuals,
 when
 given
 the

answers
 to
 insight
 problems,
 tend
 to
 overestimate
 their
 own
 abilities
 to
 have
 solved

the
 problem
 without
 the
 answers
 present.

  Bernstein
 et
 al.
 (2004)
 approached
 hindsight
 bias
 from
 a
 developmental

stance,
 comparing
 the
 extent
 of
 hindsight
 effects
 on
 children
 and
 adults
 when

identifying
 objects
 in
 gradually
 clarifying
 photographs
 on
 a
 computer
 screen.

Participants
 were
 tested
 in
 both
 worksight
 and
 hindsight
 conditions,
 asked
 in
 the

latter
 condition
 to
 speculate
 on
 when
 a
 same
 aged
 peer
 would
 have
 identified
 the
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  6

object.
 Their
 study
 revealed
 that
 when
 the
 same
 images
 were
 used
 in
 both

conditions,
 hindsight
 bias
 declined
 with
 age.
 But
 when
 different
 images
 were
 used

in
 each
 condition,
 hindsight
 bias
 was
 not
 significantly
 different
 between
 the
 age

groups.

 From
 these
 findings
 they
 proposed
 that
 the
 development
 of
 theory
 of
 mind,

or
 the
 ability
 to
 reason
 about
 another
 person’s
 thoughts
 or
 experience,
 is
 an

important
 part
 of
 hindsight
 bias.
 Theory
 of
 mind
 develops
 in
 early
 adulthood,
 which

could
 explain
 why
 the
 children,
 in
 one
 situation,
 had
 significantly
 greater
 hindsight

biases
 than
 the
 adults.
 But
 the
 results
 also
 indicate
 that,
 in
 some
 situations,
 even
 an

adult’s
 theory
 of
 mind
 may
 be
 limited,
 resulting
 in
 the
 same
 level
 of
 hindsight
 effect

experienced
 by
 a
 child.

  Our
 study
 aims
 to
 explore
 these
 hypotheses
 and
 to
 further
 understand
 what

contributes
 to
 hindsight
 bias.
 In
 doing
 so,
 we
 can
 figure
 out
 how
 to
 better

manipulate
 and
 control
 this
 variable,
 and
 in
 which
 situations
 biases
 are
 more
 likely

to
 occur.
 We
 chose
 to
 study
 the
 relationship
 between
 insight
 problem
 difficulty
 and

resulting
 hindsight
 biases,
 another
 known
 method
 of
 hindsight
 manipulation
 (Hoch

&
 Loewenstein,
 1989).
 Hoch
 and
 Loewenstein
 (1989)
 found
 that
 hindsight

consequences
 are
 positively
 correlated
 with
 the
 difficulty
 level
 of
 insight
 problems.

By
 investigating
 this
 relationship
 more
 closely,
 we
 can
 explore
 what
 components
 of

hindsight
 bias
 allow
 for
 this
 manipulation.

In
 order
 to
 study
 the
 relationship,
 we
 designed
 the
 experiment
 to
 isolate
 the

variable
 of
 insight
 difficulty
 by
 using
 anagrams.
 With
 anagrams,
 we
 could
 create

clear
 levels
 of
 task
 difficulty
 by
 manipulating
 the
 letters
 of
 the
 anagrams.
 We

designed
 a
 repeated
 measures
 experiment,
 in
 which
 each
 participant
 was
 tested
 in
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  7

both
 hindsight
 and
 worksight
 conditions.
 In
 the
 worksight
 condition,
 participants

solved
 the
 anagrams
 themselves,
 without
 the
 presence
 of
 the
 anagram
 solution,
 and

were
 asked
 to
 rate
 the
 difficulty
 of
 the
 problem.
 In
 the
 hindsight
 condition,

participants
 saw
 the
 anagrams
 and
 the
 anagram
 solution
 and
 were
 again
 asked
 to

rate
 the
 difficulty
 of
 the
 problem
 but
 were
 also
 asked
 to
 speculate
 on
 the
 abilities
 of

an
 average
 person
 to
 solve
 the
 anagram.
 In
 both
 conditions,
 aside
 from
 the
 presence

or
 absence
 of
 the
 anagram
 solution,
 we
 manipulated
 only
 anagram
 length.
 Based
 on

previous
 literature,
 we
 predicted
 that
 longer
 anagrams
 (more
 difficult
 insight
 tasks),

due
 to
 their
 higher
 complexity,
 would
 make
 participants
 more
 susceptible
 to

memory
 error
 and
 pose
 greater
 limitations
 on
 their
 theory
 of
 mind
 abilities.

Therefore,
 we
 predicted
 that
 as
 task
 difficulty
 increased,
 participant’s

overestimation
 of
 another
 individual’s
 abilities
 and
 the
 underestimation
 of
 anagram

difficulty
 in
 the
 hindsight
 condition
 would
 also
 increase.

Method

Participants

  This
 study
 was
 conducted
 by
 41
 Skidmore
 College
 students
 enrolled
 in
 an

Experimental
 Psychology
 course.
 This
 experiment
 was
 a
 required
 assignment
 for

said
 course.
 Each
 experimenter
 chose
 2
 participants
 with
 whom
 they
 would
 run
 the

experiment.
 Thus,
 there
 were
 82
 participants,
 33
 were
 male,
 and
 44
 were
 female.
 5

participants
 did
 not
 report
 their
 gender.
 The
 age
 of
 the
 participants
 was
 not

recorded.

Materials
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  8

  The
 experimenters
 conducted
 the
 experiment
 on
 their
 two
 participants
 at

different
 times
 over
 the
 course
 of
 a
 week.
 All
 experimenters
 conducted
 the
 lab
 in
 the

same
 computer
 classroom,
 using
 the
 same
 software,
 set
 of
 instructions,
 and
 pre-­‐set

anagram
 program.

  The
 anagram
 program
 consisted
 of
 two
 different
 anagram
 designs,
 Anagram

1
 and
 Anagram
 2.
 Each
 design
 consisted
 of
 two,
 15
 word
 anagram
 sets.
 Each
 set

consisted
 of
 and
 four-­‐letter
 anagrams
 presented
 in
 a
 randomized
 order.
 For
 each

anagram,
 the
 first
 letter
 of
 the
 anagram
 was
 also
 the
 first
 letter
 of
 the
 word
 solution.

For
 example,
 “yolk”
 was
 represented
 in
 the
 four-­‐letter
 anagram
 “ylok,”
 “weasel”
 was

represented
 in
 the
 six-­‐letter
 anagram
 “walseel,”
 and
 “hydrogen”
 was
 represented
 in

the
 eight-­‐letter
 anagram
 “hogdreny”.
 In
 Anagram
 1,
 the
 first
 set
 of
 anagrams
 was

used
 in
 the
 worksight
 condition
 while
 the
 second
 set
 was
 used
 in
 the
 hindsight

condition.
 Anagram
 2
 used
 the
 sets
 of
 anagrams
 in
 the
 reverse
 order,
 using
 the

second
 set
 of
 anagrams
 in
 the
 worksight
 condition
 and
 the
 first
 set
 of
 anagrams
 in

the
 hindsight
 condition.
 Thus,
 the
 two
 designs
 consisted
 of
 identical
 sets
 of
 words,

but
 differed
 in
 the
 conditions
 in
 which
 they
 used
 them.

Procedure

  Each
 experimenter
 used
 both
 anagram
 designs,
 one
 on
 each
 of
 their
 two

participants.
 The
 anagrams
 allowed
 for
 a
 repeated
 measure
 design,
 exposing
 each

participant
 to
 both
 the
 worksight
 and
 hindsight
 conditions.

The
 participants
 were
 read
 the
 instructions
 of
 the
 anagram
 task
 before

beginning
 each
 condition.
 First,
 participants
 were
 tested
 in
 the
 worksight

conditions.
 Anagrams
 appeared
 on
 the
 computer
 one
 at
 a
 time.
 Participants
 pressed
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  9

the
 space
 bar
 upon
 solving
 the
 anagram
 and
 then
 rated
 the
 difficulty
 of
 solving
 the

anagram
 by
 entering
 a
 number
 from
 1
 to
 5,
 1
 indicating
 the
 anagram
 was
 very

difficult
 and
 5
 indicating
 that
 the
 anagram
 was
 very
 easy.

 The
 participants
 were
 not

limited
 in
 the
 amount
 of
 time
 they
 had
 to
 solve
 the
 anagram,
 and
 were
 allowed
 to

ask
 the
 experimenter
 for
 subsequent
 letters
 if
 they
 had
 difficulty
 solving
 the

anagram.

  After
 the
 first
 set
 of
 15
 anagrams,
 the
 participants
 were
 then
 tested
 in
 the

hindsight
 conditions.
 Anagrams
 appeared
 on
 the
 computer
 one
 at
 a
 time,
 this
 time

with
 the
 solution
 to
 the
 anagram
 appearing
 above
 the
 anagram
 itself.
 The

participants
 pressed
 the
 space
 bar
 when
 they
 thought
 a
 typical
 person
 would
 have

solved
 the
 anagram.
 They
 then
 rated
 the
 difficulty
 of
 the
 anagram
 by
 again
 entering

a
 number
 from
 1
 to
 5
 (1=very
 difficult,
 5=
 very
 easy).

  After
 exposure
 to
 all
 30
 anagrams,
 the
 participants
 were
 debriefed
 on
 the

purpose
 of
 the
 experiment.

Ratings.
 Two
 composite
 variables
 were
 created
 and
 utilized
 after
 collecting

the
 data
 from
 the
 experiment.
 These
 two
 variables
 are
 the
 dependent
 variables
 of

our
 experiment
 and
 measure
 the
 extent
 of
 the
 hindsight
 effect
 on
 the
 participants.

The
 number
 of
 letters
 in
 the
 anagrams
 (three
 levels:
 four,
 six,
 and
 eight)
 is
 the

independent
 variable,
 which
 we
 will
 refer
 to
 as
 anagram
 length.
 Each
 anagram

length
 corresponds
 with
 two
 variables,
 Difference
 in
 Response
 Times
 and
 Difference

in
 Difficulty
 Rating
 between
 the
 worksight
 and
 hindsight
 conditions.
 Our
 ratings

allow
 us
 to
 examine
 the
 relationship
 between
 the
 number
 of
 letters
 in
 the
 anagram

and
 the
 extent
 of
 the
 hindsight
 effect.
Effects
 of
 Task
 Difficulty
 on
 Hindsight
 Bias
  10

The
 Differences
 in
 Response
 Times
 were
 computed
 by
 subtracting
 the
 mean

response
 time,
 measured
 in
 milliseconds,
 of
 each
 anagram
 length
 in
 the
 worksight

condition
 from
 the
 mean
 response
 time
 for
 each
 corresponding
 anagram
 length
 in

the
 hindsight
 condition.
 Thus,
 if
 a
 participant
 had
 a
 mean
 response
 time
 of
 6315
 ms

for
 the
 four-­‐letter
 anagrams
 in
 the
 worksight
 condition
 and
 a
 mean
 response
 time

estimate
 of
 1620
 ms
 for
 the
 four-­‐letter
 anagrams
 in
 the
 hindsight
 condition,
 the

participant’s
 Difference
 in
 Response
 Time
 for
 four
 letter
 anagrams
 would
 be
 6316
 –

1620,
 which
 yields
 4694.8.

The
 Differences
 in
 Difficulty
 Ratings
 were
 computed
 by
 subtracting
 the
 mean

difficulty
 rating
 of
 each
 anagram
 length
 in
 the
 worksight
 condition
 from
 the
 mean

difficulty
 rating
 of
 each
 corresponding
 anagram
 length
 in
 the
 hindsight
 condition.

Thus,
 if
 a
 participant
 had
 a
 mean
 difficulty
 rating
 of
 3.2
 for
 the
 six-­‐letter
 anagrams
 in

the
 worksight
 condition
 and
 a
 mean
 difficulty
 rating
 of
 3
 for
 the
 six-­‐letter
 anagrams

in
 the
 hindsight
 condition,
 the
 participant’s
 Difference
 in
 Difficulty
 Rating
 for
 the

six-­‐letter
 anagrams
 would
 be
 3.2
 –
 3,
 which
 yields
 .2.

  Both
 composite
 variables
 allowed
 us
 to
 determine
 by
 how
 much
 the

participant
 over
 or
 under
 estimated
 another
 person’s
 abilities
 and
 the
 difficulty
 of

the
 anagrams
 in
 the
 hindsight
 condition.
 Because
 the
 mean
 scores
 of
 the
 hindsight

condition
 are
 being
 subtracted
 from
 the
 mean
 scores
 of
 the
 worksight
 condition,
 for

both
 Differences
 in
 Response
 Times
 and
 Differences
 in
 Difficulty
 Ratings,
 a
 positive

score
 indicates
 an
 underestimation
 of
 response
 time
 or
 anagram
 difficulty
 in
 the

hindsight
 condition
 and
 a
 negative
 score
 would
 indicate
 an
 overestimation.
 Thus,