Expert surveys provide a standardized way to access and synthesize specialized knowledge, thereby, enabling the analysis of a diverse range of concepts and contexts that might otherwise be difficult to approach systematically. However, while studies of public opinion have long argued that cognitive biases represent potential problems when it comes to the general population, less attention has been paid to similar issues among expert respondents. This study examines one form of cognitive bias, hindsight bias. Hindsight bias refers to the tendency to retrospectively exaggerate one’s foresight of a particular event. We argue that hindsight bias is a potential problem when it comes to retrospective evaluation due to the difficulty involved in separating our assessments of the pre-crisis period from the knowledge that a crisis occurred. Using disaggregated data from the Varieties of Democracy Project, we look for evidence of hindsight bias in coders’ evaluations of the periods that preceded major crises of democracy. We find that coder disagreement is significantly higher in pre-crisis scenarios than in our control group. Concerningly, despite this disagreement, coders remain similarly confident in their assessments. This represents a potential problem for those who seek to use these data to study democratic breakdowns and transitions.

中文翻译：

---

专家调查中的事后偏见：民主危机如何影响回顾性评估

专家调查提供了一种获取和综合专业知识的标准化方式，从而能够分析可能难以系统地处理的各种概念和背景。然而，尽管公众舆论研究长期以来一直认为认知偏差代表了一般人群的潜在问题，但专家受访者对类似问题的关注较少。本研究考察了一种形式的认知偏见，即事后偏见。事后偏见是指回顾性地夸大自己对特定事件的远见的倾向。我们认为，在回顾性评估时，事后偏见是一个潜在的问题，因为很难将我们对危机前时期的评估与危机发生的知识分开。使用来自各种民主项目的分类数据，我们寻找编码员对民主重大危机之前时期的评估中存在事后偏见的证据。我们发现，在危机前情景中，编码人员的分歧明显高于我们的对照组。令人担忧的是，尽管存在这种分歧，编码人员仍然对他们的评估充满信心。对于那些试图使用这些数据来研究民主崩溃和过渡的人来说，这代表了一个潜在的问题。编码员对他们的评估保持同样的信心。对于那些试图使用这些数据来研究民主崩溃和过渡的人来说，这代表了一个潜在的问题。编码员对他们的评估保持同样的信心。对于那些试图使用这些数据来研究民主崩溃和转变的人来说，这代表了一个潜在的问题。