Across three studies (256 participants making 6,866 scenario-level ratings), we investigate how people forecast others' emotional responses to potentially offensive behaviours. Our two goals were to assess whether these forecasts reflect social projection, i.e. whether people rely on their own emotional reactions when estimating others', and to assess the accuracy of those forecasts using both intensity ratings and percentage estimates (sometimes called consensus estimates). In Study 1, participants rated how offensive 15 behaviours felt to them and how offensive they believed others would feel. Self and other ratings were strongly correlated, but participants consistently believed others would be more offended, especially for behaviours most people regarded as benign. In Study 2, participants indicated (yes/no) whether they were offended by 32 behaviours and estimated what percentage of others would be offended. We found evidence of a truly false consensus effect; those who were offended showed substantial overestimation, although even unoffended participants overestimate percentages for the least offensive behaviours. Study 3 replicated these patterns using a hybrid design. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying our findings, as well as implications for the regulation of offensive content and directions for future research.

Non-traditional providers and healthcare settings (e.g., dental offices, pharmacies) provide an opportunity to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine accessibility; however, they remain underutilized. The purpose of this study was to examine United States (U.S.) parents' perceptions of healthcare provider recommendations for the HPV vaccine and perceived convenience and likelihood of vaccination across healthcare settings. Parents' perceptions were assessed and compared according to the Transtheoretical Model stages of change (action: adolescent already vaccinated; preparation: intend-to-vaccinate; contemplation: unsure of intention). Parents of adolescents ages 11-12 from across the U.S. were recruited to participate in an online survey via Qualtrics that measured their perceptions of HPV vaccination by healthcare provider type and setting. The convenience and likelihood of vaccinating in different settings and the importance of provider recommendation were evaluated for those in the preparation and contemplations groups using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs. Participants across all stages of change were similar in their perceptions of vaccination across healthcare settings, rating family practice and pediatric offices as the most convenient and most likely settings for vaccination. Dental offices were perceived as the least convenient and least likely settings, and dental provider recommendations were rated as the least important. Among those in the contemplation stage, pharmacies were also rated lower in convenience and likelihood. There is a missed opportunity for HPV vaccination in non-traditional settings, including dental offices and pharmacies. Increasing education on HPV and availability of the vaccine in alternative settings can encourage vaccine uptake and move parents towards preparation and action.

Previous research has described physicians' reluctance to use computerized diagnostic aids (CDAs) but has never experimentally examined the effects of not consulting an aid that was readily available. Experiment 1. Participants read about a diagnosis made either by a physician or an auto mechanic (to control for perceived expertise). Half read that a CDA was available but never actually consulted; no mention of a CDA was made for the remaining half. For the physician, failure to consult the CDA had no significant effect on competence ratings for either the positive or negative outcome. For the auto mechanic, failure to consult the CDA actually increased competence ratings following a negative but not a positive outcome. Negligence judgments were greater for the mechanic than for the physician overall. Experiment 2. Using only a negative outcome, we included 2 different reasons for not consulting the aid and provided accuracy information highlighting the superiority of the CDA over the physician. In neither condition was the physician rated lower than when no aid was mentioned. Ratings were lower when the physician did not trust the CDA and, surprisingly, higher when the physician believed he or she already knew what the CDA would say. Finally, consistent with our previous research, ratings were also high when the physician consulted and then followed the advice of a CDA and low when the CDA was consulted but ignored. Individual differences in numeracy did not qualify these results. Implications for the literature on algorithm aversion and clinical practice are discussed.

We clarify two points made in our commentary (Pezzo & Beckstead, 2020, this issue) on a recent paper by Longoni, Bonezzi, and Morewedge (2019). In both Experiments 1 and 4 from their paper, it is not possible to determine whether accuracy can compensate for algorithm aversion. Experiments 3A-C, however, do show a strong effect of accuracy such that AI that is superior to a human provider is embraced by patients. Many papers, including Longoni et al. tend to minimize the role of this compensatory process, apparently because it seems obvious to the authors (Longoni, Bonezzi, Morewedge, 2020, this issue). Such minimization, however, can lead to (mis)citations in which research that clearly demonstrates a compensatory role of AI accuracy is cited as non-compensatory.

We call attention to an important, but overlooked finding in research reported by Longoni, Bonezzi and Morewedge (2019). Longoni et al. claim that people always prefer a human to an artificially intelligent (AI) medical provider. We show that this was only the case when the historical performance of the human and AI providers was equal. When the AI is known to outperform the human, their data showed a clear preference for the automated provider. We provide additional statistical analyses of their data to support this claim.

The purpose of this article is to examine the statistical characteristics of binary sequences with the aim of uncovering the implicit cues that people use when making forecasts of what comes next. Information theory was used to quantify these statistical characteristics. In 2 experiments people were presented with 100 intact sequences of 20 Xs and Os and simply asked to forecast whether the 21st event in each sequence will be an X or an O. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds associated with these forecasts under different experimental manipulations. In a third experiment people judged the forecastability of sequences in a paired-comparison task. The results from the first 2 experiments showed that third-order redundancy (i.e., information provided by knowledge of the preceding pairs of events) was the most salient cue influencing forecasts. Experiment 3 showed that judgments of forecastability were based on this cue as well. When examining intact sequences with the goal of forecasting what comes next, people are more sensitive to higher-order transitional probabilities than has been previously suggested. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Background/Purpose. The benefits of prescribing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for patients following heart surgery is well documented; however, physicians continue to underuse CR programs, and disparities in the referral of women are common. Previous research into the causes of these problems has relied on self-report methods, which presume that physicians have insight into their referral behavior and can describe it accurately. In contrast, the research presented here used clinical judgment analysis (CJA) to discover the tacit judgment and referral policies of individual physicians. The specific aims were to determine 1) what these policies were, 2) the degree of self-insight that individual physicians had into their own policies, 3) the amount of agreement among physicians, and 4) the extent to which judgments were related to attitudes toward CR. Methods. Thirty-six Canadian physicians made judgments and decisions regarding 32 hypothetical cardiac patients, each described on 5 characteristics (gender, age, type of cardiovascular procedure, presence/absence of musculoskeletal pain, and degree of motivation) and then completed the 19 items of the Attitude towards Cardiac Rehabilitation Referral scale. Results. Consistent with previous studies, there was wide variation among physicians in their tacit and stated judgment policies, and self-insight was modest. On the whole, physicians showed evidence of systematic gender bias as they judged women as less likely than men to benefit from CR. Insight data suggest that 1 in 3 physicians were unaware of their own bias. There was greater agreement among physicians in how they described their judgments (stated policies) than in how they actually made them (tacit policies). Correlations between attitude statements and CJA measures were modest. Conclusions. These findings offer some explanation for the slow progress of efforts to improve CR referrals and for gender disparities in referral rates.

Thirty-five years since the publication of Fischhoff's (1975) seminal article, we continue to be fascinated by the hindsight bias. Like a well-developed character in a novel, the bias has something for everyone. Its basic tenet - that things seem less surprising in hindsight than they should - is instantly recognizable as a common human flaw. It is robust, often difficult to reduce, and appeals to researchers with a wide range of interests including history, business, law, medicine, and of course, psychology. This interest stems from the belief that failure to be surprised by an event prevents us from learning from it, and will likely cause us to judge others unfairly for not having been able to foresee it. But just how bad is it? Although guided by a cold cognitive mechanism that 'creeps up' on us, hindsight bias is complex, seemingly strengthened, and yet also reduced by self-serving motives. In this article, I introduce the reader to the basic designs used to study the bias, key cognitive and motivational mechanisms, the major controversies, and some unstudied questions that I hope will guide future research.

Examined the effects of motivated processing on hindsight bias. One hundred fifty three college students estimated and later recalled the likelihood that 30 self-relevant events would occur during the next 2 months. Multi-level modelling was used to determine the (within-subject) effects of expectations, event valence and event controllability on hindsight bias and the extent to which these effects were moderated by participants' need for cognition (NFC) scores (between-subjects). For events that actually occurred, we found support for defensive processing in that the bias was smaller for negative events. Also, for events that actually occurred, those judged as more controllable produced a larger bias. Neither valence nor controllability had any effect on the size of the bias for events that did not occur. The size of the bias for occurrences did not differ significantly from that for non-occurrences. Finally, NFC did not moderate the effects of valence or controllability, nor did it directly affect the size of the bias. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interpersonal curiosity (IPC) is the desire for new information about people. Fifty-one IPC items were administered to 321 participants (248 women, 73 men), along with other measures of curiosity and personality. Three factors were identified from which five-item subscales were developed that had good internal consistency: Curiosity about Emotions, Spying and Prying, and Snooping. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated the three-factor model had acceptable fit. The IPC scales correlated positively with other curiosity measures and interest in gossip, providing evidence of convergent validity. Divergent validity was demonstrated in finding the other curiosity scales correlated more highly with each other than with IPC; parallel results were found for the gossip measures.

Can we learn from our mistakes? Does the large body of research demonstrating hindsight bias indicate that people are not likely to take responsibility for their errors and thus deprive themselves of the opportunity to learn to avoid such errors in the future? This examines two somewhat contradictory theories of hindsight bias, defensive processing and retroactive pessimism, and proposes a "motivated sense-making" model as a possible similar common pathway for the two processes. Specific attention is given to the implications of each process with regard to learning from one's mistakes.

Objective. The authors examined whether physicians’ use of computerized decision aids affects patient satisfaction and/or blame for medical outcomes. Method. Experiment 1: Fiftynine undergraduates read about a doctor who made either a correct or incorrect diagnosis and either used a decision aid or did not. All rated the quality of the doctor's decision and the likelihood of recommending the doctor. Those receiving a negative outcome also rated negligence and likelihood of suing. Experiment 2: One hundred sixty-six medical students and 154 undergraduates read negative-outcome scenarios in which a doctor either agreed with the aid, heeded the aid against his own opinion, defied the aid in favor of his own opinion, or did not use a decision aid. Subjects rated doctor fault and competence and the appropriateness of using decision aids in medicine. Medical students made judgments for themselves and for a layperson. Results. Experiment 1: Using a decision aid caused a positive outcome to be rated less positively and a negative outcome to be rated less negatively. Experiment 2: Agreeing with or heeding the aid was associated with reduced fault, whereas defying the aid was associated with roughly the same fault as not using one at all. Medical students were less harsh than undergraduates but accurately predicted undergraduate's responses. Conclusion. Agreeing with or heeding a decision aid, but not defying it, may reduce liability after an error. However, using an aid may reduce favorability after a positive outcome.

The present study investigated variables related to errors in predicting when tasks will be completed. Participants (N=184) responded to the Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ; Jones, Banicky, Pomare, & Lasane, 1999) and Temporal Orientation Scale (TOS; Bond & Feather, 1988) and predicted when they would complete either a desirable or undesirable task. Factor analysis of the TSQ and TOS identified two factors: yuppie traits, which involved being hard-working and goal-oriented, and hippie traits that reflected “living for the moment”. Overall, individuals tended to underestimate when they would complete both tasks. However, for the undesirable task, yuppie traits corresponded with less prediction bias whereas hippie traits were associated with greater bias.