THE EFFECTS OF HINDSIGHT BIAS AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION ON HUMAN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

This research examined the influence of hindsight bias and causal attribution on perceptions of a technological disaster. After reading a fictitious account of a toxic substance spill near a populated area, subjects were provided with information that disease rates had either increased or had remained stable (hindsight conditions), or were presented with no outcome information (control condition). Subjects were then asked to predict the likelihood of increases in disease rates and to make causal attributions regarding the target company and residents of the disaster community. When compared to subjects provided with either no outcome information or with information that disease rates remained stable (positive-outcome condition), subjects told that disease rates had increased (negative-outcome condition) showed elevated predictions regarding future disease rates, ascribed greater responsibility for the accident to the target company, and reported more anger toward the company and greater sympathy for the residents. Subjects receiving positive outcome information and no outcome information did not significantly differ on these measures. In addition, results from a path analysis supported the efficacy of attribution theory to account for the cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences resulting from hindsight bias following a negative environmental event.