Systematic overconfidence by individuals regarding their abilities and prospects could have important economic consequences. But overconfidence has received little direct testing within economics.We use experiments to test for overconfidence in people's forecasts of their absolute or relative performance in two unfamiliar tasks. Given their chosen effort, participants have incentives to forecast accurately, with opportunities for feedback, learning and revision. Forecasts are evaluated at aggregate and individual levels. We find zero mean error or underconfidence far more prevalent than overconfidence. Underconfidence is greatest in forecasts of absolute rather than relative performance and among those using greater effort quantity or quality.The over-weening conceit which the greater part of men have of their own abilities is an ancient evil remarked by the philosophers and moralists of all ages.(Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, 1776)Social commentators of many generations have recognised the human tendency to be overconfident. Modern psychology has examined many facets of overconfidence, with the better-than-average effect arguably the most well-known manifestation. Svenson (1981), for example, found that more than 80% of the population consider themselves above-average drivers. An inter-temporal version of the better-than-average effect occurs when people are asked to forecast their relative likelihood of experiencing future events, resulting in unrealistic optimism. Participants in psychology studies report that relative to their peers they expect an above-average likelihood of having high starting salaries, job satisfaction, enduring marriages, gifted children and other positive life events (Weinstein, 1980;Baker and Emery, 1993). Conversely, respondents report a below-average risk of being robbed or assaulted, or experiencing unemployment, job loss or health problems (WeinsteinMiller et al., 1990). A second facet of overconfidence is miscalibration of probability judgements in individual decision making. In typical studies of miscalibration participants answer general knowledge questions with one of two possible answers and then report their confidence in their answer on a scale from 50-100%. Mean judgements are typically higher than the actual proportion correct, suggesting that people are overconfident in the correctness of their knowledge. Similarly, people are systematically overconfident about the precision of their knowledge as demonstrated by the tendency to report overly narrow confidence intervals for uncertain quantities (Lichtenstein et al., 1982). 1 * We are grateful for feedback from conference participants at the This summary simplifies a vast psychological literature on overconfidence. See Griffin and Brenner (2004) for a recent survey. Overconfidence is also thought to manifest itself as self-attribution bias, where people attribute success to own skill but blame failure on chance (Taylor and Brown, 1988).