Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask

Klayman, Joshua; Soll, Jack B.; González‐Vallejo, Claudia; Barlas, Sema

doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2847

Cited by 663 publications

(443 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

396

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, when judges are 90 to 99% sure in their answer to a binary choice question, they are typically correct about 70% of the time; when they are only 50% sure, they are correct around 55% of the time. The results for interval estimates have been similar, though perhaps stronger: For example, judges' 90% intervals typically contain the correct answer less than 50% of the time (Klayman et al, 1999;Russo & Schoemaker, 1992). (The hard-easy effect has not been investigated for interval estimates.)…”

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…That is, when confidence is high, it's generally too high, and when it's low, it's generally too low-the typical pattern of miscalibration. Similarly, when accuracy is low for a set of questions it's likely to be lower than the available information would lead one to expect, and when accuracy is high it's likely to be higher than one would expect (Dawes & Mulford, 1996;Klayman et al, 1999;Suantak, Bolger, & Ferrell, 1996). This leads to overconfidence for "hard" question sets, and occasionally even underconfidence for "easy" question sets -the hardeasy effect.…”

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies by Klayman et al (1999) and Juslin, Wennerholm, and Olsson (2000) found that interval estimates are prone to a great deal of overconfidence-much more so than binary choice questions. However, the processes underlying this type of judgment are not well understood.…”

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers generally theorized that overconfidence results from biased retrieval and interpretation of evidence (e.g., Hoch, 1985;Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980). Beginning in the late 1980's, however, a different picture emerged concerning confidence in binary choice (see Budescu et al, 1997;Klayman et al, 1999;McClelland and Bolger, 1994 for syntheses). According to this new view, judges' responses contain lots of error, but little or no bias.…”

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

Soll

Klayman

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

360

345

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judges were asked to make numerical estimates (e.g., “In what year was the first flight of a hot air balloon?”). Judges provided high and low estimates such that they were X% sure that the correct answer lay between them. They exhibited substantial overconfidence: The correct answer fell inside their intervals much less than X% of the time. This contrasts with choices between 2 possible answers to a question, which showed much less overconfidence. The authors show that overconfidence in interval estimates can result from variability in setting interval widths. However, the main cause is that subjective intervals are systematically too narrow given the accuracy of one's information—sometimes only 40% as large as necessary to be well calibrated. The degree of overconfidence varies greatly depending on how intervals are elicited. There are also substantial differences among domains and between male and female judges. The authors discuss the possible psychological mechanisms underlying this pattern of findings.

show abstract

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

Soll

Klayman

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

360

345

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and then have participants estimate 90% confidence intervals around their answers. Results show that these confidence intervals are too narrow, suggesting that people are too sure they know the correct answer; 90% confidence intervals contain the correct answer less than 50% of the time (Alpert & Raiffa, 1969Klayman, Soll, Gonzalez-Vallejo, & Barlas, 1999;Soll & Klayman, 2004).…”

Section: Trouble With Overconfidencementioning

confidence: 96%

The trouble with overconfidence.

Moore

Healy

2008

Psychological Review

1,902

1,414

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors present a reconciliation of 3 distinct ways in which the research literature has defined overconfidence: (a) overestimation of one's actual performance, (b) overplacement of one's performance relative to others, and (c) excessive precision in one's beliefs. Experimental evidence shows that reversals of the first 2 (apparent underconfidence), when they occur, tend to be on different types of tasks. On difficult tasks, people overestimate their actual performances but also mistakenly believe that they are worse than others; on easy tasks, people underestimate their actual performances but mistakenly believe they are better than others. The authors offer a straightforward theory that can explain these inconsistencies. Overprecision appears to be more persistent than either of the other 2 types of overconfidence, but its presence reduces the magnitude of both overestimation and overplacement.

show abstract

Judgment and Decision Making

Connolly¹,

Ordóñez²

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgment and decision‐making (JDM) research embraces a broad interdisciplinary array of topics concerned with human choice. It includes both descriptive studies, aimed at understanding what real decision makers actually do and normative (or prescriptive) work, aimed at advising people how they might make better choices. Core processes include making inferences about what is currently happening, making predictions about what might happen next, and developing preferences about these possible future states. A variety of choice processes have been identified by which these elements can be brought together in selection of preferred actions, either at a single point in time or as a series of interventions over time. Though most research attention has considered individual decision makers, there is also important work in two‐person (negotiation, bargaining) processes and in multiperson decisions made in groups. Across these many topics there is recurrent disparity between what people are seen to be doing and what some putatively normative model suggests they should be doing, suggesting that either model or behavior is in error. This tension, and the obvious applicability of the resolution to important practical decisions, has kept the field highly energized for several decades. The creative furor continues.

show abstract

Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask

Cited by 663 publications

References 44 publications

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

The trouble with overconfidence.

Judgment and Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About