This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dawson, N. V. Articles by Petrelli, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dawson, N. V. Articles by Petrelli, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Hindsight Bias: An Impediment to Accurate Probability Estimation in Clinicopathologic Conferences

Hal R. Arkes

Carl Siciliano

Richard Blinkhorn

Mark Lakshmanan

Mary Petrelli

Although clinicopathologic conferences (CPCs) have been valued for teaching differential diagnosis, their instructional value may be compromised by hindsight bias. This bias occurs when those who know the actual diagnosis overestimate the likelihood that they would have been able to predict the correct diagnosis had they been asked to do so beforehand. Evidence for the presence of the hindsight bias was sought among 160 physicians and trainees attending four CPCs. Before the correct diagnosis was announced, half of the conference audience estimated the probability that each of five possible diagnoses was correct (foresight subjects). After the correct diagnosis was announced the remaining (hindsight) subjects estimated the probability they would have assigned to each of the five possible diagnoses had they been making the initial differential diagnosis. Only 30% of the foresight subjects ranked the correct diagnosis as first, versus 50% of the hindsight subjects (p < 0.02). Although less experienced physicians consistently demonstrated the hindsight bias, more experienced physicians succumbed only on easier cases. Key words: clinicopathologic conferences; hindsight bias; cognitive bias; debiasing techniques. (Med Decis Making 8:259-264, 1988)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 4, 259-264 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800406


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. Tobin Cognitive bias and the poetics of surprise Language and Literature, May 1, 2009; 18(2): 155 - 172. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. C. Sorum, E. Mullet, J. Shim, S. Bonnin-Scaon, G. Chasseigne, and J. Cogneau Avoidance of Anticipated Regret: The Ordering of Prostate-Specific Antigen Tests Med Decis Making, March 1, 2004; 24(2): 149 - 159. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. L. DeKay and D. A. Asch Is the Defensive Use of Diagnostic Tests Good for Patients, or Bad? Med Decis Making, January 1, 1998; 18(1): 19 - 28. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. D. Schiff Commentary: Diagnosis Tracking and Health Reform American Journal of Medical Quality, December 1, 1994; 9(4): 149 - 152. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. V. Dawson, A. F. Connors, T. Speroff, A. Kemka, P. Shaw, and H. R. Arkes Hemodynamic Assessment in Managing the Critically III: Is Physician Confidence Warranted? Med Decis Making, August 1, 1993; 13(3): 258 - 266. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. A. Redelmeier, P. Rozin, and D. Kahneman Understanding Patients' Decisions: Cognitive and Emotional Perspectives JAMA, July 7, 1993; 270(1): 72 - 76. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. L. Meadow, J. Lantos, R. R. Tanz, D. Mendez, R. Unger, and P. Wallskog Ought 'Standard Care' Be the 'Standard of Care'? A Study of the Time to Administration of Antibiotics in Children With Meningitis Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, January 1, 1993; 147(1): 40 - 44. [Abstract] [PDF]

				In reply Med Decis Making, August 1, 1989; 9(3): 218 - 219. [PDF]

				A. S. Elstein On the Clinical Significance of Hindsight Bias Med Decis Making, February 1, 1989; 9(1): 70 - 70. [PDF]

				N. V. Dawson Comments on a Commentary Med Decis Making, February 1, 1989; 9(1): 68 - 69. [PDF]