In Chapter 1, we discuss the tragedy of Robert Dziekanski’s death after he was Tasered by RCMP officer in the Vancouver airport. As the inquiry into his death unfolded, many asked: "How could the police have done that? Didn’t they know what would happen?" The media and public heavily criticized the RCMP for their behaviour. However, how should we consider this in light of the hindsight bias?

We tend to exaggerate our ability to have foreseen how something would turn out, after learning the outcome. For example, Demakis (1997) reported hindsight bias in connection with pre- and post-verdict predictions of the outcome of the first O. J. Simpson criminal trial. Students who made post-verdict ratings were more likely to say they expected a not guilty verdict and less likely to have expected a hung jury than those who made pre-verdict predictions. You may want to replicate the hindsight bias by having some of your students predict the outcome of some sporting event or election (local or federal) and then by having other students remember their predictions after the outcome is known (this is most easily done if you have more than one psychology class).

Russo and Schoemaker (1989) suggested that we see more reasons for an event when it has already happened than when we simply ask why it might occur. They asked managers and MBA students who had been given a brief description of a new employee why he might quit six months from now. They generated a mean of 3.5 reasons per person; however, when told that the new employee had already quit, the hindsight group generated 25% more reasons on average (4.4 reasons). Moreover, the reasons were more specific and more closely tied to the description of the employee. The investigators further suggested that by merely pretending that an event has occurred leads us to see more reasons for its occurrence and ultimately to assign it a higher probability of becoming reality. For example, they indicated that people who imagine that a woman has been elected president of the United States in 2004 come up with more reasons why this occurred than those who are simply asked why a woman might be elected in 2004. Moreover, when finally asked to estimate the probability of the hypothetical event becoming reality, the former give a higher estimate than the latter. Russo and Schoemaker concluded that although hindsight usually obstructs learning, sometimes prospective hindsight can be turned to advantage in contemplating the future. If you doubt whether people have sufficient insight into the myriad of causes that could produce success or failure for an important project, it may be useful to have them engage in some "mental time travel."

Are you aware of other situations where the media, and others, make these kinds of mistakes?

Demakis, G. J. (1997). "Hindsight Bias and the Simpson Trial" Teaching of Psychology, 24(3).

Russo, J.E. and Schoemaker, P. (1989). Decision Traps: Ten Barriers to Brilliant Decision‑making and How To Overcome Them.