Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Regular ArticleOverconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask☆1,☆2,☆3,☆4,☆5,☆6,☆7,☆8,☆9,☆10
References (61)
Internal cue theory: Calibration and resolution of confidence in general knowledge
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1994)- et al.
Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgments: A critical examination
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1996) - et al.
A mode of calibration for subjective probabilities
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1980) - et al.
The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence
Cognitive Psychology
(1992) - et al.
Towards a consensus on overconfidence
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1996) Confidence in judgment
Trends in Cognitive Science
(1997)The overconfidence phenomenon as a consequence of informal experimenter-guided selection of almanac items
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1994)- et al.
The calibration issue: Theoretical comments on Suantak, Bolger, and Ferrell (1996)
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1998) Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues
Acta Psychologica
(1991)- et al.
Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?: The calibration of probability judgments
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1977)
Influences on the appropriateness of confidence in judgment: Practice, effort, information, and decision making
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Are we overconfident in the belief that probability forecasters are overconfident?
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Determinants of overconfidence and miscalibration: The roles of random error and ecological structure
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
The hard–easy effect in subjective probability calibration
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
How real is overconfidence?
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Wishful thinking and objectivity among sports fans
Social Behavior
Realism of confidence in sensory discrimination: The underconfidence phenomenon
Perception & Psychophysics
The conceptual framework of psychology
On the importance of random error in the study of probability judgment: Part I. New theoretical developments
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Stochastic and cognitive models of confidence [Special issue]
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
On the importance of random error in the study of probability judgment: Part II. Applying the stochastic judgment model to detect systematic trends
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Structural holes
The contingent value of social capital
Administrative Science Quarterly
Calibration and the aggregation of probabilities
Management Science
Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography
International Journal of Forecasting
Confidence in intellectual judgments vs. confidence in perceptual judgments
The overconfidence effect in social prediction
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes
Psychological Review
Discrete subjective probabilities and decision analysis: Elicitation, calibration and combination
Debiasing
Cited by (0)
- ☆1
This research was supported by Grant SBR-9409627 from the Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences Program of the National Science Foundation. We thank Peter Juslin, Eldar Shafir, David Budescu, Robin Hogarth, Christopher Hsee, J. Edward Russo, William Ferrell, Terry Connolly, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.
- ☆2
Argentina 71, Canada 77.
- ☆3
Approximately 200 calories.
- ☆4
Gigerenzer et al. (1991) used both mixed- and single-domain question sets and found no difference. However, the two sets were not randomly selected. Rather, they were selected to be difficult, and equally so. Also, only one domain was tested in a single-domain presentation. Thus, the Gigerenzer et al. study does not afford a direct comparison of mixed- and single-domain procedures.
- ☆5
They have also been referred to as “misleading” (May, 1986) and as “deceptive” (Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein, 1977). We avoid these terms because they imply some special features that fool people; in fact, contrary questions merely fail to conform to one' prediction.
- ☆6
In the models of Ferrell and colleagues, what we refer to as a signal is modeled as the separation between two signals, one for each alternative.
- ☆7
In our usage, an item is one of the members of the list for a given domain (e.g., the poverty level of Vermont), as distinct from a question posed to participants (e.g., “Which of these states …”). Thus, two-choice questions require a comparison of two items.
- ☆8
Recall that there are always two comparisons between samples of questions (i.e., two ways of comparing data from different questions and different participants within each domain). Each comparison uses separate data, so where both agree in sign, the results are more reliable than either alone.
- ☆9
In the absence of complicated proper-scoring rules and incentives, participants could obtain this result by giving impossible answers on 10% of the questions and near-infinite ranges on 90%. However, neither we nor other researchers have found any evidence of this.
- ☆10
The worst participant's answers were all off by orders of magnitude, and the single within-range answer seems to have been the result of a typing error. However, this participant did appear to take the task seriously (did not use the same number repeatedly, did not use arbitrary numbers such as 0, used different scales of numbers for the different domains, etc.) The next-worst participants had 8% and 9% of their answers within range. We reran our analyses eliminating the worst participant, in case he or she had misunderstood something. The results were substantively the same; the overall proportion of within-range answers rose to .45.
- f2
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Joshua Klayman, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 1101 East 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. E-mail:[email protected].