当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
What determines hindsight bias in written work? One field and three experimental studies in the context of Wikipedia.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied ( IF 2.7 ) Pub Date : 2022-08-04 , DOI: 10.1037/xap0000445
Marcel Meuer 1 , Steffen Nestler 2 , Aileen Oeberst 3
Affiliation  

Hindsight bias not only occurs in individual perception but in written work (e.g., Wikipedia articles) as well. To avoid the possibility that biased written representations of events distort the views of broad audiences, one needs to understand the factors that determine hindsight bias in written work. Therefore, we tested the effect of three potential determinants: the extent to which an event evokes sense-making motivation, the availability of verifiable causal information regarding the event, and the provision of content policies. We conducted one field study examining real Wikipedia articles (N = 40) and three preregistered experimental studies in which participants wrote or edited articles based on different materials (total N = 720). In each experiment, we systematically varied one determinant. Findings provide further-and even more general-support that Wikipedia articles about various events contain hindsight bias. The magnitude of hindsight bias in written work was contingent on the sense-making motivation and the availability of causal information. We did not find support for the effect of content policies. Findings are in line with causal model theory and suggest that some types and topics of written work might be particularly biased by hindsight (e.g., coverage of disasters, research reports, written expert opinions). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译:

是什么决定了书面作品中的事后偏见?维基百科背景下的一个领域和三个实验研究。

后见之明偏见不仅出现在个人看法中,也出现在书面作品(例如,维基百科文章)中。为了避免有偏见的事件书面陈述扭曲广大观众的观点的可能性,我们需要了解决定书面作品中事后偏见的因素。因此,我们测试了三个潜在决定因素的影响:事件在多大程度上激发了意义建构动机、有关事件的可验证因果信息的可用性以及内容政策的提供。我们进行了一项实地研究,检查真实的维基百科文章(N = 40)和三项预先注册的实验研究,参与者根据不同的材料撰写或编辑文章(总 N = 720)。在每个实验中,我们系统地改变了一个决定因素。调查结果进一步甚至更普遍地支持维基百科关于各种事件的文章包含事后偏见。书面作品中后见之明偏见的严重程度取决于理解动机和因果信息的可用性。我们没有找到对内容政策影响的支持。调查结果符合因果模型理论,并表明某些类型和主题的书面作品可能特别偏向于事后​​诸葛亮(例如,灾难报道、研究报告、书面专家意见)。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA,保留所有权利)。我们没有找到对内容政策影响的支持。调查结果符合因果模型理论,并表明某些类型和主题的书面作品可能特别偏向于事后​​诸葛亮(例如,灾难报道、研究报告、书面专家意见)。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA,保留所有权利)。我们没有找到对内容政策影响的支持。调查结果符合因果模型理论,并表明某些类型和主题的书面作品可能特别偏向于事后​​诸葛亮(例如,灾难报道、研究报告、书面专家意见)。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2022-08-04
down
wechat
bug