What determines hindsight bias in written work? One field and three experimental studies in the context of Wikipedia.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1037/xap0000445
Marcel Meuer, Steffen Nestler, Aileen Oeberst
{"title":"What determines hindsight bias in written work? One field and three experimental studies in the context of Wikipedia.","authors":"Marcel Meuer,&nbsp;Steffen Nestler,&nbsp;Aileen Oeberst","doi":"10.1037/xap0000445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hindsight bias not only occurs in individual perception but in written work (e.g., Wikipedia articles) as well. To avoid the possibility that biased written representations of events distort the views of broad audiences, one needs to understand the factors that determine hindsight bias in written work. Therefore, we tested the effect of three potential determinants: the extent to which an event evokes sense-making motivation, the availability of verifiable causal information regarding the event, and the provision of content policies. We conducted one field study examining real Wikipedia articles (<i>N</i> = 40) and three preregistered experimental studies in which participants wrote or edited articles based on different materials (total <i>N</i> = 720). In each experiment, we systematically varied one determinant. Findings provide further-and even more general-support that Wikipedia articles about various events contain hindsight bias. The magnitude of hindsight bias in written work was contingent on the sense-making motivation and the availability of causal information. We did not find support for the effect of content policies. Findings are in line with causal model theory and suggest that some types and topics of written work might be particularly biased by hindsight (e.g., coverage of disasters, research reports, written expert opinions). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":"29 2","pages":"239-258"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000445","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hindsight bias not only occurs in individual perception but in written work (e.g., Wikipedia articles) as well. To avoid the possibility that biased written representations of events distort the views of broad audiences, one needs to understand the factors that determine hindsight bias in written work. Therefore, we tested the effect of three potential determinants: the extent to which an event evokes sense-making motivation, the availability of verifiable causal information regarding the event, and the provision of content policies. We conducted one field study examining real Wikipedia articles (N = 40) and three preregistered experimental studies in which participants wrote or edited articles based on different materials (total N = 720). In each experiment, we systematically varied one determinant. Findings provide further-and even more general-support that Wikipedia articles about various events contain hindsight bias. The magnitude of hindsight bias in written work was contingent on the sense-making motivation and the availability of causal information. We did not find support for the effect of content policies. Findings are in line with causal model theory and suggest that some types and topics of written work might be particularly biased by hindsight (e.g., coverage of disasters, research reports, written expert opinions). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是什么决定了书面工作中的后见之明偏见?维基百科背景下的一个领域和三个实验研究。
后见之明偏见不仅发生在个人感知中,也发生在书面工作中(例如,维基百科文章)。为了避免对事件有偏见的书面陈述扭曲广大受众观点的可能性,人们需要了解书面工作中决定后见之明偏见的因素。因此,我们测试了三个潜在决定因素的影响:事件唤起意义形成动机的程度,关于事件的可验证因果信息的可用性,以及内容政策的提供。我们进行了一项实地研究,检查了真实的维基百科文章(N = 40)和三项预先注册的实验研究,其中参与者根据不同的材料撰写或编辑文章(N = 720)。在每个实验中,我们系统地改变了一个决定因素。研究结果提供了进一步的、甚至更普遍的支持,即维基百科关于各种事件的文章存在后见之明的偏见。在书面工作中,后见之明偏见的程度取决于意义形成动机和因果信息的可用性。我们没有找到支持内容政策效果的证据。研究结果与因果模型理论一致,并表明某些类型和主题的书面工作可能会因后见之明而特别有偏见(例如,对灾害的报道、研究报告、书面专家意见)。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1