Not the same old hindsight bias: Outcome information distorts a broad range of retrospective judgments

Bradfield, Amy L.; Wells, Gary L.

doi:10.3758/bf03195302

Cited by 39 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, CGI-S only needs representation of the patient's current condition. Thus, the current results might be interpreted as suggesting that using CGI-I might be more prone to well known effects of hindsight memory distortion [e.g., [26]]: When using CGI-I at discharge, therapists, teams and patients might have been inclined to retrospectively recall the patient's condition at admission as more impaired than it really was according to CGI-S adm and thus rated change of condition as more prominent. If this was the case, in our view, it would threaten the validity of CGI-I as outcome measure in clinical trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSince its first publication, the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) has become one of the most widely used assessment instruments in psychiatry. Although some conflicting data has been presented, studies investigating the CGI's validity have only rarely been conducted so far. It is unclear whether the improvement index CGI-I or a difference score of the severity index CGI-S dif is more valid in depicting clinical change. The current study examined the validity of these two measures and investigated whether therapists' CGI ratings correspond to the view the patients themselves have on their condition.MethodsThirty-one inpatients of a German psychotherapeutic hospital suffering from a major depressive disorder (age M = 45.3, SD = 17.2; 58.1% women) participated. Patients filled in the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). CGI-S and CGI-I were rated from three perspectives: the treating therapist (THER), the team of therapists involved in the patient's treatment (TEAM), and the patient (PAT). BDI and CGI-S were filled in at admission and discharge, CGI-I at discharge only. Data was analysed using effect sizes, Spearman's ρ and intra-class correlations (ICC).ResultsEffect sizes between CGI-I and CGI-S dif ratings were large for all three perspectives with substantially higher change scores on CGI-I than on CGI-S dif. BDI dif correlated moderately with PAT ratings, but did not correlate significantly with TEAM or THER ratings. Congruence between CGI-ratings from the three perspectives was low for CGI-S dif (ICC = .37; Confidence Interval [CI] .15 to .59; F30,60 = 2.77, p < .001; mean ρ = 0.36) and moderate for CGI-I (ICC = .65 (CI .47 to .80; F30,60 = 6.61, p < .001; mean ρ = 0.59).ConclusionsResults do not suggest a definite recommendation for whether CGI-I or CGI-S dif should be used since no strong evidence for the validity of neither of them could be found. As congruence between CGI ratings from patients' and staff's perspective was not convincing it cannot be assumed that CGI THER or TEAM ratings fully represent the view of the patient on the severity of his impairment. Thus, we advocate for the incorporation of multiple self- and clinician-reported scales into the design of clinical trials in addition to CGI in order to gain further insight into CGI's relation to the patients' perspective.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, in the feedback paradigm participants cannot misremember their prior decision because feedback is administered immediately after the identification is made. Second, participants are asked to recall judgements surrounding a decision, rather than a decision itself (see Bradfield & Wells, 2005, for a fuller discussion of these issues). Therefore, the post-identification feedback effect demonstrates that outcome information can distort memories beyond the boundaries first outlined by Fischhoff.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: a meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect

Douglass

Steblay

2006

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

116

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedback administered to eyewitnesses after they make a line-up identification dramatically distorts a wide range of retrospective judgements (e.g. G. L. Wells & A. L. Bradfield, 1998 Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360-376.). This paper presents a meta-analysis of extant research on post-identification feedback, including 20 experimental tests with over 2400 participant-witnesses. The effect of confirming feedback (i.e. 'Good, you identified the suspect') was robust. Large effect sizes were obtained for most dependent measures, including the key measures of retrospective certainty, view and attention. Smaller effect sizes were obtained for so-called objective measures (e.g. length of time the culprit was in view) and comparisons between disconfirming feedback and control conditions. This meta-analysis demonstrates the reliability and robustness of the post-identification feedback effect. It reinforces recommendations for double-blind testing, recording of eyewitness reports immediately after an identification is made, and reconsideration by court systems of variables currently recommended for consideration in eyewitness evaluations.

show abstract

“…Whereas there is little skepticism about the ubiquity or robustness of hindsight bias, it is discussed how to taxonomize varieties of the phenomenon (Bradfield and Wells ; Blank et al. ).…”

Section: The Empirical Case For Outcome Biasmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Whereas outcome bias concerns the evaluation of an individual or procedure responsible for the outcome, classic hindsight bias studies showed that knowledge of the outcome causes participants to overestimate its probability (Fischhoff ). This may lead people to think that they knew the outcome before it occurred—a “knew‐it‐all‐along” effect (Fischhoff and Beyth ; Bradfield and Wells ; Blank et al. ).…”

Section: The Empirical Case For Outcome Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truth‐Sensitivity and Folk Epistemology

Gerken

2018

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have found a robust effect of truth on epistemic evaluation of belief, decision, action and assertion. Thus, truth has a significant effect on normative participant evaluations. Some theorists take this truth effect to motivate factive epistemic norms of belief, action, assertion etc. In contrast, I argue that the truth effect is best understood as an epistemic instance of the familiar and ubiquitous phenomenon of outcome bias. I support this diagnosis from three interrelating perspectives: (1) by epistemological theorizing, (2) by considerations from cognitive psychology and (3) by methodological reflections on the relationship between folk epistemology and epistemological theorizing.

show abstract

Not the same old hindsight bias: Outcome information distorts a broad range of retrospective judgments

Cited by 39 publications

References 43 publications

The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome

The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome

Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: a meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect

Truth‐Sensitivity and Folk Epistemology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About