Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation¶
Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569-579.
Cited by¶
11 citations across 11 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Adaptive Redirection
- Classification here runs on the relation among course, evidence, options and retained value, not on what happened next.
This sourceEstablishes experimentally that judgements of decision quality are contaminated by knowledge of the outcome, so the quality of a decision and the quality of its result are separate objects of evaluation.
- Classification here runs on the relation among course, evidence, options and retained value, not on what happened next.
- Decision
- Decision quality (the reasoning process, the information used, the decision rules applied) is distinct from outcome quality (what actually occurred), a separation Baron and Hershey (1988) experimentally demonstrated in their study of outcome bias in decision evaluation.
This sourceExperimentally shows people rate identical decisions more favorably when outcomes are good, dissociating decision quality from outcome quality.
- Decision quality (the reasoning process, the information used, the decision rules applied) is distinct from outcome quality (what actually occurred), a separation Baron and Hershey (1988) experimentally demonstrated in their study of outcome bias in decision evaluation.
Mechanisms¶
- After-Action Proportionality Review
- Its central failure mode is outcome bias — grading the decision by how the case ended rather than by whether the response fit what was known at the time.
This sourceDemonstrates outcome bias: evaluators rate identical decision reasoning more favorably when its outcome is favorable despite the same ex ante information.
- Its central failure mode is outcome bias — grading the decision by how the case ended rather than by whether the response fit what was known at the time.
- Decision-Process Review
- Its defining commitment is the separation of process from outcome
This sourceSeparates decision quality from outcome quality and shows that evaluators judge the same decision differently after good and bad outcomes.
- Its defining commitment is the separation of process from outcome
- Forgone-Alternative Decision Journal
- Its strength is defeating outcome bias and hindsight at the source — a tamper-proof, decision-time record is the standard defense against judging a past choice by how it happened to turn out
This sourceShows that outcome knowledge biases evaluations of a prior decision's quality.
- Its strength is defeating outcome bias and hindsight at the source — a tamper-proof, decision-time record is the standard defense against judging a past choice by how it happened to turn out
- Interaction After-Action Review
- Its central distortion is outcome bias — once the ending is known, the earlier read looks obviously wrong or obviously astute, and the review grades the model by how things turned out rather than by whether it was reasonable on the evidence available at the time.
This sourceDemonstrates outcome bias: knowledge of favorable outcomes raises evaluations of identical decision processes even though decision quality should be judged from information available when the decision was made.
- Its central distortion is outcome bias — once the ending is known, the earlier read looks obviously wrong or obviously astute, and the review grades the model by how things turned out rather than by whether it was reasonable on the evidence available at the time.
- Negative Prediction Error Review
- … versus the outcome: the analyst who sized a position correctly on the evidence available, and was then blindsided by a genuine surprise, is not punished for the loss — because punishing sound decisions for unlucky results just teaches everyone to stop taking well-judged risks and to bury the ones they do take.
This sourceDemonstrates that people evaluate the same decision process differently depending on whether its outcome was favorable or unfavorable.
- … versus the outcome: the analyst who sized a position correctly on the evidence available, and was then blindsided by a genuine surprise, is not punished for the loss — because punishing sound decisions for unlucky results just teaches everyone to stop taking well-judged risks and to bury the ones they do take.
- Regret-Weighted Decision Log
- It is a structural counter to outcome bias, the tendency to judge a decision's quality by how it happened to turn out.
This sourceDemonstrates outcome bias: knowledge of how a decision turned out changes evaluations of its quality even when the decision-time information is held constant.
- It is a structural counter to outcome bias, the tendency to judge a decision's quality by how it happened to turn out.
- Stop-Rule Postmortem
- Its central hazard is judging the decision by its result instead of its reasoning — outcome bias, the documented tendency to rate a decision as good or bad according to how it turned out rather than how sound it was given what was known.
This sourceDemonstrates outcome bias: evaluations of decision quality shift with the known outcome even when the decision information is otherwise held constant.
- Its central hazard is judging the decision by its result instead of its reasoning — outcome bias, the documented tendency to rate a decision as good or bad according to how it turned out rather than how sound it was given what was known.
- Success Debrief Luck–Skill Separator
- Marked up honestly, the night reads not as "I'm better" but as "I played a solid B+ into a soft table and ran hot" — a conclusion that keeps her studying instead of coasting into the outcome-bias trap of grading her decisions by how they happened to turn out
This sourceDemonstrates outcome bias: identical decision processes receive better evaluations when their outcomes happen to be favorable.
- Marked up honestly, the night reads not as "I'm better" but as "I played a solid B+ into a soft table and ran hot" — a conclusion that keeps her studying instead of coasting into the outcome-bias trap of grading her decisions by how they happened to turn out
- Uncertainty Retrospective Prompt
- It guards against outcome bias by keeping the lens on the process of handling uncertainty rather than on whether a call happened to pan out.
This sourceDistinguishes decision-process quality, assessed from information available when the decision was made, from how the outcome later turned out.
- It guards against outcome bias by keeping the lens on the process of handling uncertainty rather than on whether a call happened to pan out.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 11 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:f1f0400ef362 · see in the full table