What drives increases in hindsight impressions after the reception of biased media content?

Prior research has shown that reading biased media content (e.g., Wikipedia articles) can increase recipients' hindsight bias. It remained unclear, however, which features of the biased texts led to such an increase. We examined this question in a longitudinal experimental study (N = 190). Specifically, we tested whether repeated exposure to already known information (H1), a more coherent presentation of the information (H2), or the presentation of novel information (H3) affected readers' hindsight impressions of likelihood, inevitability, and foreseeability. To this end, participants initially learned about an event by reading several short news, and, 1 week later, received one of several summarizing texts, which systematically varied in the information contained. We found empirical support for the unique effect of mere repeated exposure and receiving novel information. Since media coverage of meaningful events is usually highly repetitive but also often comprising novel information, our findings contribute to a better understanding of how hindsight bias may publicly persist or even increase over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Wikipedia outperforms individuals when it comes to hindsight bias.

Hindsight bias-the tendency to overestimate in hindsight what one knew in foresight-is a robust and pervasive human error. A recent study with Wikipedia articles, however, found evidence for a hindsight bias only for disasters but not for any other event category (e.g., elections). Although this might suggest Wikipedia articles to be less biased than individuals, alternative explanations had not been ruled out. The present study set out to answer this question by comparing individuals' and Wikipedia's representation of the very same event in foresight and hindsight. In particular, we made use of a state election and surveyed one part of participants before and after the outcome and had other participants rate the corresponding Wikipedia article versions with regard to the extent to which the article was suggestive of a particular outcome and presented it as foreseeable and inevitable. In line with prior research and our hypotheses, we found a hindsight bias at the individual level but not in Wikipedia articles. Applying Bayesian statistics, there was substantial support for the null hypothesis (i.e., no hindsight bias) in Wikipedia. By controlling for the potential impact of participants' own hindsight bias on their article ratings we can rule out alternative explanations of our findings. Therefore, our findings are the first to demonstrate Wikipedia's superiority over individuals when it comes to hindsight bias.

Collectively biased representations of the past: Ingroup Bias in Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts.

Individuals tend to present their own group (the ingroup) in a systematically more favourable way (ingroup bias). By examining socially negotiated and publicly accessible Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts, we investigated ingroup bias at a collective level. Specifically, we compared articles about the same intergroup conflicts (e.g., the Falklands War) in the corresponding language versions of Wikipedia (e.g., the Spanish and English Wikipedia articles about the Falklands War). Study 1 featured a content coding of translated Wikipedia articles by trained raters, which showed that articles systematically presented the ingroup in a more favourable way (e.g., Argentina in the Spanish article and the United Kingdom in the English article) and, in reverse, the outgroup as more immoral and more responsible for the conflict. These findings were replicated and extended in Study 2, which was limited to the lead sections of articles but included considerably more conflicts and many participants instead of a few trained coders. This procedure allowed for separate analyses for each conflict, which showed considerable variance in the results pattern with a stronger ingroup bias for (1) more recent conflicts and (2) conflicts in which the proportion of ingroup members among the top editors was larger. Finally, a third study ruled out that these effects were driven by translations or the raters' own nationality. Therefore, this paper is the first to demonstrate ingroup bias in Wikipedia - a finding that is of practical as well as theoretical relevance as we outline in the discussion.

Is there hindsight bias without real hindsight? Conjectures are sufficient to elicit hindsight bias.

After learning about an event, people often mistakenly believe to have predicted what happened all along (hindsight bias). However, what if what has happened is not known, but subject to conjecture? Could conjectures, in the absence of knowledge about the event, elicit the same bias and make people believe they "conjectured it all along", too? We examined this question in 2 studies. Immediately after the disappearance of flight MH370 in March, 2014, we asked N = 432 individuals about the likelihood of a number of possible events. One year later, N = 100 of these individuals participated again and were randomly assigned to 2 experimental conditions. Participants in the current conjecture group answered the same questions from their current perspective, participants in the reproduced conjecture group were asked to reproduce their earlier estimates. Results show that conjectures had changed over time and affected participants' reproductions of their earlier estimates. We replicated this finding in a controlled lab experiment (N = 94) and found a comparable magnitude of conjecture-based and knowledge-based hindsight bias. These findings demonstrate hindsight distortions in the absence of definite knowledge and extend theoretical assumptions about the prerequisites of hindsight bias in the context of events. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Biases in the production and reception of collective knowledge: the case of hindsight bias in Wikipedia.

The Web 2.0 enabled collaboration at an unprecedented level. In one of the flagships of mass collaboration-Wikipedia-a large number of authors socially negotiate the world's largest compendium of knowledge. Several guidelines in Wikipedia restrict contributions to verifiable information from reliable sources to ensure recognized knowledge. Much psychological research demonstrates, however, that individual information processing is biased. This poses the question whether individual biases translate to Wikipedia articles or whether they are prevented by its guidelines. The present research makes use of hindsight bias to examine this question. To this end, we analyzed foresight and hindsight versions of Wikipedia articles regarding a broad variety of events (Study 1). We found the majority of articles not to contain traces of hindsight bias-contrary to prior individual research. However, for a particular category of events-disasters-we found robust evidence for hindsight bias. In a lab experiment (Study 2), we then examined whether individuals' hindsight bias is translated into articles under controlled conditions and tested whether collaborative writing-as present in Wikipedia-affects the resultant bias (vs. individual writing). Finally, we investigated the impact of biased Wikipedia articles on readers (Study 3). As predicted, biased articles elicited a hindsight bias in readers, who had not known of the event previously. Moreover, biased articles also affected individuals who knew about the event already, and who had already developed a hindsight bias: biased articles further increased their hindsight.

Reading about explanations enhances perceptions of inevitability and foreseeability: a cross-cultural study with Wikipedia articles.

In hindsight, people often perceive events to be more inevitable and foreseeable than in foresight. According to Causal Model Theory (Nestler et al. in J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 34: 1043-1054, 2008), causal explanations are crucial for such hindsight distortions to occur. The present study provides further empirical support for this notion but extends previous findings in several ways. First, ecologically valid materials were used. Second, the effect of causal information on hindsight distortions was investigated in the realm of previously known events. Third, cross-cultural differences in reasoning (analytic vs. holistic) were taken into account. Specifically, German and Vietnamese participants in our study were presented with Wikipedia articles about the nuclear power plant in Fukushima Daiichi, Japan. They read either the version that existed before the nuclear disaster unfolded (Version 1) or the article that existed 8 weeks after the catastrophe commenced (Version 2). Only the latter contained elaborations on causal antecedents and therefore provided an explanation for the disaster. Reading that version led participants to perceive the nuclear disaster to be more likely inevitable and foreseeable when compared to reading Version 1. Cultural background did not exert a significant effect on these perceptions. Hence, hindsight distortions were obtained for ecologically valid materials even if the event was already known. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.