Premium
Postdecision Consolidation in a Trend Prediction Task
Author(s) -
Lundberg Gustav, C.,
Svenson Ola
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.743
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1467-9450
pISSN - 0036-5564
DOI - 10.1111/1467-9450.00183
Subject(s) - psychology , consolidation (business) , outcome (game theory) , social psychology , task (project management) , affect (linguistics) , cognitive psychology , economics , management , communication , microeconomics , finance
To be able to learn from experience it is necessary to correctly apprehend experienced feedback and the situation in which it is provided. The results indicate how post‐decision consolidation in complex domains may affect learning. The problem may be particularly pertinent in recurrent decision making where considerable risk is involved. The study explores the changes in aspect (signal) importance from pre‐ to postdiction as a function of outcome information. By postdiction we mean the remembering of an earlier prediction (cf. Hawkins & Hastie, 1990). Subjects were asked to decide on which of four alternative future price developments would follow a historical price trajectory for different commodities, and to rate the importance of each of the chosen alternative’s corresponding aspects. The subjects revealed a bias in their support ratings of aspects—seeing support in aspects that traditionally (by themselves and in many contexts) would be seen as neutral or even counter‐indicative of the alternative chosen. After an intermission, the subjects were also given information about what was indicated to be the actual development of the market. One group was told that their decisions were correct (irrespective of what the decisions were), another group that they were incorrect but close, a third group that they were incorrect by far, while a fourth group served as a control. Following this information the subjects were again asked to judge the importance of the aspects for their own prior decision on the most likely future development. The results indicated that outcome feed‐back had an effect on post decision restructuring of facts. Subjects in the correct condition showed an average consolidation that increased the support, while the wrong conditions lead to negative consolidation (in retrospect indicating that they never found as much support for their decision in the past as they actually did). Thus, in a choice between consolidating their own initial prediction and the price trajectory they would have to live with, the decision makers consolidated the outcome. Therefore, the results of the study were related to the hindsight bias phenomenon (Fischhoff, 1975) and to Kahneman and Miller’s (1986) mutability concept.