Notes that a major difference between historical and nonhistorical judgment is that the historical judge typically knows how things turned out. 3 experiments are described with a total of 479 college students. In Exp I, receipt of such outcome knowledge was found to increase the postdicted likelihood of reported events and change the perceived relevance of event-deive data, regardless of the likelihood of the outcome and the truth of the report. Ss 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 (Exp II), as well as what others (Exp III) 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.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288-299.