Article
from Journal of Applied History

Bound to Happen: Explanation Bias in Historical Analysis

READ FULL ARTICLE
Fort Sumter after the bombardment of April 1861
Fort Sumter after the bombardment of April 1861. An instructive historical simulation was written in the 1980s by scholars at the Harvard Kennedy School; it addresses the secession crisis in the United States. Students play the role of British merchant bankers, holding railroad options that would expire on April 12, 1861, the day Confederates attacked Fort Sumter. Students are given a range of materials, newspaper articles, and other analyses, and are asked whether they would have exercised the option and bought the shares, which would be worth less in the event of hostilities. Through this exercise and despite the fact that they know the historical outcome, individuals develop an appreciation for how hard it was in the historical moment to predict one of the most consequential events of U.S. history.

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.

Recommended citation

Mukharji, Aroop and Richard Zeckhauser. "Bound to Happen: Explanation Bias in Historical Analysis." Journal of Applied History, (December 10, 2019).

Want to read more?

The full text of this publication is available via Journal of Applied History.