Fischhoff B
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Aug;12(4):304-11; discussion 311-2. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.4.304.
One major difference between historical and nonhistorical judgment is that the historical judge typically knows how things turned out. In Experiment 1, receipt of such outcome knowledge was found to increase the postdicted likelihood of reported events and change the perceived relevance of event descriptive data, regardless of the likelihood of the outcome and the truth of the report. Judges were, however, largely unaware of the effect that outcome knowledge had on their perceptions. As a result, they overestimated what they would have known without outcome knowledge (Experiment 2), as well as what others (Experiment 3) actually did know without outcome knowledge. It is argued that this lack of awareness can seriously restrict one's ability to judge or learn from the past.
历史判断与非历史判断之间的一个主要区别在于，历史判断者通常知道事情的最终结果。在实验1中，发现这种结果知识的获取会增加所报告事件的事后预测可能性，并改变事件描述性数据的感知相关性，无论结果的可能性和报告的真实性如何。然而，判断者在很大程度上没有意识到结果知识对他们认知的影响。因此，他们高估了在没有结果知识的情况下自己会知道的内容（实验2），以及其他人在没有结果知识的情况下实际知道的内容（实验3）。有人认为，这种缺乏意识会严重限制一个人评判过去或从过去吸取教训的能力。
