Abstract
This paper documents a very pervasive underconfidence bias in the area of sensory discrimination. In order to account for this phenomenon, a subjective distance theory of confidence in sensory discrimination is proposed. This theory, based on the law of comparative judgment and the assumption of confidence as an increasing function of the perceived distance between stimuli, predicts underconfidence—that is, that people should perform better than they express in their confidence assessments. Due to the fixed sensitivity of the sensory system, this underconfidence bias is practically impossible to avoid. The results of Experiment 1 confirmed the prediction of underconfidence with the help of present-day calibration methods and indkated-a-good quantitative fit of the theory. The results of Experiment 2 showed that prolonged experience of outcome feedback (160 trials) had no effect on underconfidence. It is concluded that the subjective distance theory provides a better explanation of the underconfidence phenomenon than-do previous accounts in terms of subconscious processes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. K. (1957). Laboratory studies of behavior without awareness.Psychological Bulletin,54, 383–405.
Adams, J. K., &Adams, P. A. (1961). Realism of confidence judgments.Psychological Review,68, 33–45.
Björkman, M. (in press). Internal cue theory: Calibration and resolution of confidence in general knowledge.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Confidence in intellectual judgments vs. confidence in perceptual judgments. In E. D. Lanterman & H. Feger (Eds.),Similarity and choice: Papers in honour of Clyde Coombs (pp. 327–345). Bern: Huber.
Festinger, L. (1943). Studies in decision: I. Decision time, relative frequency of judgment and subjective confidence as related to physical stimulus difference.Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, 291–306.
Fischhoff, B., &Macgregor, D. (1982). Subjective confidence in forecasts.Journal of Forecasting,1, 155–172.
Fullerton, G. S., & Cattell, J. M. (1892). On the perception of small differences.Publications of the University of Pennsylvania (No. 2).
Garrett, H. E. (1922). A study of the relation of accuracy to speed.Archives of Psychology, No. 56.
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., &Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence.Psychological Review, 98,4, 506–528.
Griffing, J. H. (1895). On sensations from pressure and impact.Psychological Review Monographs,1, 1–88.
Johnson, D. M. (1939). Confidence and speed in two-category judgment.Archives of Psychology, No. 241.
Juslin, P. (1993). An explanation of the hard-easy effect in studies of realism of confidence in general knowledge.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,5, 55–71.
Juslin, P. (in press). The overconfidence phenomenon as a consequence of informal exrjerimenter-guided selection of almanac items.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., &Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982).Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keren, G. (1988). On the ability of monitoring non-veridical perceptions and uncertain knowledge: Some calibration studies.Acta Psychologica,67, 95–119.
Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues.Acta Psychologica,77, 217–273.
Lichtenstein, S., &Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,20, 159–183.
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., &Phillips, L. D. (1982), Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics andbiases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Connor, M. (1989). Models of human behavior and confidence in judgment: A review.International Journal of Forecasting,5, 159–169.
Peirce, C. S., &Jastrow, J. (1884). On small differences of sensation.Memoirs National Academy of Sciences,3, 73–83.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review,34, 273–286.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). Psychophysical analysis.American Journal of Psychology,38, 368–369.
Wallsten, T. S., &Budescu, D. V. (1983). Encoding subjective probabilities: A psychological and psychometric review.Management Science,29, 2, 152–173.
Winkler, R. L. (1971). Probabilistic prediction: Some experimental results.Journal of the American Statistical Association,66, 675–685.
Yates, J. F. (1982). External correspondence: Decompositions of the mean probability score.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,30, 132–156.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and the Social Sciences.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Björkman, M., Juslin, P. & Winman, A. Realism of confidence in sensory discrimination: The underconfidence phenomenon. Perception & Psychophysics 54, 75–81 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206939
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206939