The social transmission of overconfidence.

Abstract

We propose and test the overconfidence transmission hypothesis, which predicts that individuals calibrate their self-assessments in response to the confidence others display in their social group. Six studies that use a mix of correlational and experimental methods support this hypothesis. Evidence indicates that individuals randomly assigned to collaborate in laboratory dyads converged on levels of overconfidence about their own performance rankings. In a controlled experimental context, observing overconfident peers causally increased an individual's degree of bias. The transmission effect persisted over time and across task domains, elevating overconfidence even days after initial exposure. In addition, overconfidence spread across indirect social ties (person to person to person), and transmission operated "stealthily," outside of reported awareness. However, individuals showed a selective in-group bias; overconfidence was acquired only when cued by a member of one's in-group (and not out-group), consistent with theoretical notions of selective learning bias. Combined, these results advance understanding of the social factors that underlie inter-individual differences in overconfidence, and suggest that social transmission processes may be in part responsible for why local "confidence traditions" emerge in groups, teams, and organizations.

Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility

“…An incorrect view of one's ability to detect false news might reduce the influence of new information about how to assess media items' credibility, as well as willingness to engage with digital literacy programs. For this reason, it may be important to better understand the roots of overconfidence, from demographics (51) to domain involvement (52) to social incentives (49,53), and how they apply in the case of perceptions of news discernment.…”

Online interaction turns the congeniality bias into an uncongeniality bias

“…Finally, there are many more boundary conditions of an uncongeniality bias and subsequent polarisation left to be explored 52 . Among these are cognitive factors (e.g., the role of knowledge and metacognition on the likelihood to argue against dissenters 53,54 ), emotional factors (e.g., the influence of discrete emotions on expression 55 ), personality factors (e.g., openness to experience 56 ), ideological factors (e.g., political stance 57 ), or technological factors over and above the affordance to talk back (e.g., uncongeniality bias with respect to recommended content 58 ).…”

Paradox of diversity in the collective brain

“…But the few successes pay for the failures in an investor's portfolio and at a population level. And for this reason, the population may develop a culture of individualism, non-conformity [ 118 – 120 ], and overconfidence [ 121 , 122 ]. Indeed, risk-taking and overconfidence can evolve through success-biased transmission as people see the successful but not the unsuccessful [ 118 , 123 ].…”