Journal Article - Journal of Applied History
Bound to Happen: Explanation Bias in Historical Analysis
Abstract
This paper argues that historical analysis, necessarily written with hindsight, often underestimates the uncertainties of the past. We call this tendency explanation bias. This bias leads individuals—including professional historians—to imply greater certainty in causal analyses than the evidence justifies. Their analyses will treat what is plausible to be probable. We offer a few intuitions about why explanation bias exists, its relation to other well-established psychological biases, what it leads to, and how it might be combatted. Appreciating the depth of uncertainty and ignorance in our world is critical for accurately understanding, interpreting, and drawing from the past to illuminate the present and the near future.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via Journal of Applied History.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
International Security
For Academic Citation:
Mukharji, Aroop and Richard Zeckhauser. "Bound to Happen: Explanation Bias in Historical Analysis." Journal of Applied History, (December 10, 2019).
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Journal Article
- Small Wars Journal
Rethinking Bernard Fall's Legacy. The Persistent Relevance of Revolutionary Warfare (Part I)
Analysis & Opinions
- The National Interest
The Other Paris Peace Treaty (And Why the Spanish-American War Still Matters)
Journal Article
- Negotiation Journal
Back Channel Negotiations and Dangerous Waiting
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
Abstract
This paper argues that historical analysis, necessarily written with hindsight, often underestimates the uncertainties of the past. We call this tendency explanation bias. This bias leads individuals—including professional historians—to imply greater certainty in causal analyses than the evidence justifies. Their analyses will treat what is plausible to be probable. We offer a few intuitions about why explanation bias exists, its relation to other well-established psychological biases, what it leads to, and how it might be combatted. Appreciating the depth of uncertainty and ignorance in our world is critical for accurately understanding, interpreting, and drawing from the past to illuminate the present and the near future.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via Journal of Applied History.Mukharji, Aroop and Richard Zeckhauser. "Bound to Happen: Explanation Bias in Historical Analysis." Journal of Applied History, (December 10, 2019).
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Journal Article - Small Wars Journal
Rethinking Bernard Fall's Legacy. The Persistent Relevance of Revolutionary Warfare (Part I)
Analysis & Opinions - The National Interest
The Other Paris Peace Treaty (And Why the Spanish-American War Still Matters)
Journal Article - Negotiation Journal
Back Channel Negotiations and Dangerous Waiting
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy


