Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nario, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Branscombe, N. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Nario, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Branscombe, N. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison Processes in Hindsight and Causal Attribution

Michelle R. Nario

University of Kansas

Nyla R. Branscombe

University of Kansas

It was hypothesized that hindsight effects and biased causal attributions both result from the causal explanations that perceivers construct when linking antecedents to outcomes at encoding. Specifically, the likelihood of a particular outcome and its perceived causal origins should depend on the number of causal antecedents available, the complexity of subjects' outcome explanations, and the number of outcome alternatives considered. After subjects were exposed to variations in event-specific information, they either learned the outcome or not and then explained one or more outcome alternatives. As predicted, estimates of outcome likelihood were inflated as the complexity of subjects' causal explanations increased. However, inducing subjects to explain alternative outcomes-particularly several alternative outcomes-reduced their tendency to exaggerate the likelihood of the known outcomes. Similarly, causal attributions varied as a function of the outcome alternatives explained and the number of causal antecedents presented. Implications for legal strategies are discussed.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 12, 1244-1255 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/01461672952112001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
L. L. Carli
Cognitive Reconstruction, Hindsight, and Reactions to Victims and Perpetrators
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, August 1, 1999; 25(8): 966 - 979.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
N. J. Roese and S. D. Maniar
Perceptions of Purple: Counterfactual and Hindsight Judgments at Northwestern Wildcats Football Games
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, December 1, 1997; 23(12): 1245 - 1253.
[Abstract]