Table Of ContentRunning
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,
Description:eight-‐letter anagrams in each condition. underestimation of the anagram difficulties in the hindsight condition Participants seemed unable.
