Hindsight bias, Conjunctive explanations and causal attribution

16Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Extending the reasoning of the causal model theory of the hindsight bias, the effect of multiple antecedents as explanations of an event is investigated. On the basis of the conjunction effect and the assumption of a causal mechanism model of attribution the following hypotheses are examined: (1) People will evaluate an outcome as more plausible and more inevitable when two antecedents belonging to the same causal mechanism are available. (2) In case of two antecedents obeying different mechanisms the outcome will be perceived as equally or even less plausible and less inevitable compared to single-antecedent conditions. Results of two experiments confirmed the hypotheses. They are interpreted as evidence for a causal model theory of the hindsight bias and a causal mechanism account of attribution.

References Powered by Scopus

Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment

2710Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty

1519Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution

286Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy

183Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Assessment in Simulations

98Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Hindsight ≠ Hindsight: Experimentally Induced Dissociations Between Hindsight Components

49Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nestler, S., & Von Collani, G. (2008). Hindsight bias, Conjunctive explanations and causal attribution. Social Cognition, 26(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.4.482

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 13

59%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

23%

Researcher 3

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 18

69%

Social Sciences 3

12%

Medicine and Dentistry 3

12%

Business, Management and Accounting 2

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free