Outcome bias in decision evaluation
Jonathan Baron and John Hershey report five experiments in which undergraduates judged decisions made by others under uncertainty, with the outcome already known. The decisions concerned medical treatments or monetary gambles, and the judges were told the decision maker had the same relevant information they had. Decisions followed by good outcomes were rated as better reasoned, and their makers as more competent and more deserving of the next decision. In the gambles, a decision was also rated higher when the option not taken turned out badly. Subjects said outcomes should not matter and were affected anyway. The authors partly attribute the pattern to outcomes making the arguments for each side more or less salient, and they list what they did not test.
Jonathan Baron and John Hershey report five experiments in which undergraduates judged decisions made by others under uncertainty, with the outcome already known. The decisions concerned medical treatments or monetary gambles, and the judges were told the decision maker had the same relevant information they had. Decisions followed by good outcomes were rated as better reasoned, and their makers as more competent and more deserving of the next decision. In the gambles, a decision was also rated higher when the option not taken turned out badly. Subjects said outcomes should not matter and were affected anyway. The authors partly attribute the pattern to outcomes making the arguments for each side more or less salient, and they list what they did not test.
Written from the full text read 2026-10-22 from an author-hosted copy, with the abstract checked at Crossref.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569-579. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569