Reasons for confidence.

Koriat, Asher; Lichtenstein, Sarah; Fischhoff, Baruch

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107

Cited by 1,156 publications

(871 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

813

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(The hard-easy effect has not been investigated for interval estimates.) 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).…”

Section: Overconfidence In Interval Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

Soll

Klayman

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

361

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: 99%

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

Soll

Klayman

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

361

345

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to a prominent explanation, people show a tendency to focus on the reasons confirming (rather than disconfirming) the answers they gave (Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980). Thus, the ability to 'defocus' attention and take into account disconfirming evidence should promote less overconfident judgments (cf.…”

Section: A Study On the Memory-decision Making Relationship: Aims Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multifold Relationship Between Memory and Decision Making: An individual-differences study

Missier¹,

Bruin²,

Nilsson³

et al. 2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several judgment and decision-making tasks are assumed to involve memory functions, but significant knowledge gaps on the memory processes underlying these tasks remain. In a study on 568 adults between 25 to 80 years, hypotheses were tested on the specific relationships between individual differences in working memory, episodic memory, and semantic memory, respectively, and six main components of decision-making competence. In line with the hypotheses, working memory was positively related with the more cognitively-demanding tasks (Resistance to Framing, Applying Decision Rules, and Under/Overconfidence), whereas episodic memory was positively associated with a more experience-based judgment task (Recognizing Social Norms). Furthermore, semantic memory was positively related with two more knowledge-based decision-making tasks (Consistency in Risk Perception and Resistance to Sunk Costs). Finally, the age-related decline observed in some of the decision-making tasks was (partially or totally) mediated by the age-related decline in working memory or episodic memory. These findings are discussed in relation to the functional roles fulfilled by different memory processes in judgment and decision-making tasks.Keywords: Judgment and decision making; Decision-making competence; Working memory; Episodic memory; Semantic memory; Cognitive aging; Individual differences. MEMORY AND DECISION MAKING 3The Multifold Relationship Between Memory and Decision Making: An Individual-differences Study Among the more promising research developments in the field of judgment and decision making is the attempt to ground judgment and decision-making processes in findings and models derived from memory research, tracing complex cognitive tasks back to their basic cognitive roots to improve the understanding of how individuals perform these tasks. Indeed, memory can play an important role in several aspects of judgment and decision-making tasks (for reviews see, e.g., Alba, Hutchinson & Lynch, 1991;Dougherty, Gronlund & Gettys, 2003;Tomlinson, Marewski & Dougherty, 2011;Weber, Goldstein & Barlas, 1995), and the age-related decline observed in some aspects of memory functioning (Park, 2000;Park et al., 1996Park et al., , 2002Salthouse, 2004) can mediate part of the age-related changes in decision-making abilities. However, the investigation of the role of memory functions in decision making has been scattered and nonsystematic, leaving various knowledge gaps about which memory functions underly specific decision-making tasks open. The study presented in this paper aims to fill some of these gaps through a systematic analysis of the relationships between individual differences in memory processes and individual differences in various aspects of decision-making competence, guided by a functional view of memory processes in decision making.In the next section, the theoretical background of the research will be presented, followed by the specific hypotheses of the study, which refer to the contribution of different memory processes to ...

show abstract

“…The methods and analyses used in this task were similar to those employed in the extensive literature on knowledge calibration (Fischhoff, 1982;Koriat et al, 1980;Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff 1977;Ronis & Yates, 1987). Subjects answered 70 general knowledge questions in a two-choice choice format.…”

Section: Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, overconfidence has been observed in perceptual judgments (Baranski & Petrusic, 1995), prediction of sports outcomes (Ronis & Yates, 1987), readingcomprehension monitoring (Glenberg & Epstein, 1987), judging the sex of handwriting samples (Schneider, 1995), prediction ofone's own behavior or life outcomes (Hoch, 1985), economic forecasts (Braun & Yaniv, 1992), and of course in the much-investigated knowledge assessment paradigm (e.g., Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980;Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, & Phillips, 1982). The effect has been obtained from subject samples in a variety of different countries (Lee et al, 1995;Yates et al, 1989) and in subject samples of adolescents as well as adults (Newman, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The domain specificity and generality of overconfidence: Individual differences in performance estimation bias

West

Stanovich

1997

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One hundred twenty-three college students performed a knowledge assessment task and a game of motor skill in which they had to predict their performance before each block of trials. There was a bias in the direction of overconfidence on both tasks, even though the latter involved the motor domain, did not require the use of numeric probabilities, and allowed predictions to be made by using an aggregate judgment made in a frequentist mode. An analysis of individual differences indicated that there was considerable domain specificity in confidence judgments. However, participants who persevered in showing overconfidence in the motor task-despite previous feedback revealing their overconfident performance predictions-were significantly more overconfident in the knowledge calibration task than were participants who moderated their motor performance predictions so as to remove their bias toward overconfidence. The latter finding is consistent with explanations of overconfidence effects that implicate mechanisms with some degree of domain generality.

show abstract

Reasons for confidence.

Cited by 1,156 publications

References 21 publications

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.

The Multifold Relationship Between Memory and Decision Making: An individual-differences study

The domain specificity and generality of overconfidence: Individual differences in performance estimation bias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About