Hindsight Bias and COVID-19: Hindsight Was Not 20/20 in 2020

• Published in: Journal of applied research in memory and cognition Vol. 12; no. 1; pp. 105 - 115
• Main Authors: Giroux, Megan E., Derksen, Daniel G., Coburn, Patricia I., Bernstein, Daniel M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washigton Educational Publishing Foundation 01.03.2023; Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
• Subjects: COVID-19; Estimation; Hindsight Bias; Human; Judgment; Memory; Peers; COVID-19; foreseeability; memory distortion; inevitability; hindsight bias
• ISSN: 2211-3681; 2211-369X
• DOI: 10.1037/mac0000033

Hindsight bias occurs when outcome information distorts people's memories of past beliefs or exaggerates perceptions of outcomes' foreseeability or inevitability. We investigated whether community and university participants in Canada and the U.S. exhibited hindsight bias for COVID-19. In Experiment 1 (N = 175), participants made original judgments about COVID-19 outcomes. Two months later, participants learned outcome information and recalled their original judgments (memory design). They also rated the foreseeability and inevitability of COVID-19. In Experiment 2 (N = 754), we used a hypothetical design. Participants learned outcome information before estimating how naïve peers would have responded 2 months earlier. Participants exhibited hindsight bias in memory and hypothetical estimations. However, they rated COVID-19 as unforeseeable and avoidable and generally did not exhibit differences in foreseeability and inevitability ratings across the two timepoints. Thus, hindsight bias for COVID-19 differs across memory distortions, foreseeability, and inevitability and extends to hypothetical judgments. General Audience Summary Hindsight can cloud the past by biasing people's beliefs about what was known prior to an outcome. Hindsight can also bias people's beliefs about the foreseeability or inevitability of an outcome. We explored hindsight bias for COVID-19 in two experiments. In both experiments, Canadian and U.S. participants made foresight judgments about several COVID-19 outcomes (e.g., case rates in various countries). Participants also judged how foreseeable and inevitable COVID-19 was. Two months later, we recruited two groups of participants: (a) a sample that previously completed the foresight judgments and (b) a new sample. Both groups received outcome information. In Experiment 1, group (a) had to ignore their current outcome knowledge and recall their original judgments for the COVID-19 outcomes. They also rated their current perceptions of foreseeability and inevitability. In Experiment 2, group (b) had to ignore their current outcome knowledge and estimate how a naïve peer would have responded to the same questions 2 months prior. We observed hindsight bias: Outcome information biased people's judgments about what they, or someone else, previously believed about various COVID-19 outcomes (e.g., death rates). Additionally, Canadian and U.S. residents perceived COVID-19 as unforeseeable ("I never could have seen this coming") and avoidable ("this didn't have to happen"). However, they generally did not demonstrate differences in foreseeability and inevitability ratings across the two timepoints. This work has applied significance for the field because it is one of the few studies to investigate hindsight bias for a real world, evolving event that is negative and self-relevant for everyone. Our results reveal the importance of studying hindsight bias for COVID-19 through various measures to determine how it affects other types of judgments (e.g., evaluations of public health authorities, vaccination tendencies, etc.); this can inform public health practices aimed at mitigating COVID-19 and future public health crises.