Studies have found that people are overconfident in estimation involving difficult tasks but underconfident in easy tasks. Conversely, they are overconfident in placing themselves in easy tasks but underconfident in hard tasks. These findings can be explained by a regression hypothesis that implies random errors in estimation as well as by rational Bayesian updating (that implies no random error). We test these hypotheses in five experiments. We find overconfidence in estimation involving hard tasks but underconfidence in easy tasks. However, for placement (involving both easy and hard tasks) we find no overconfidence, regression effects due to low and high anchor points, and extreme underconfidence when people choose between multiple alternatives. On the other hand, when given precise information about absolute performance, people's re-assessments of relative performance are consistent with the Bayesian model. Since placement judgments are important in many competitive settings, our results emphasize the need for more research to identify their determinants. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Overconfidence in absolute and relative performance: The regression hypothesis and Bayesian updating / D. Grieco, R.M. Hogarth. - In: JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY. - ISSN 0167-4870. - 30:5(2009 Oct 05), pp. 756-771.

Overconfidence in absolute and relative performance: The regression hypothesis and Bayesian updating

D. Grieco;
2009-10-05

Abstract

Studies have found that people are overconfident in estimation involving difficult tasks but underconfident in easy tasks. Conversely, they are overconfident in placing themselves in easy tasks but underconfident in hard tasks. These findings can be explained by a regression hypothesis that implies random errors in estimation as well as by rational Bayesian updating (that implies no random error). We test these hypotheses in five experiments. We find overconfidence in estimation involving hard tasks but underconfidence in easy tasks. However, for placement (involving both easy and hard tasks) we find no overconfidence, regression effects due to low and high anchor points, and extreme underconfidence when people choose between multiple alternatives. On the other hand, when given precise information about absolute performance, people's re-assessments of relative performance are consistent with the Bayesian model. Since placement judgments are important in many competitive settings, our results emphasize the need for more research to identify their determinants. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
"Better-than-average" effects; Estimation; Overconfidence; Placement; Applied Psychology; Sociology and Political Science; Economics and Econometrics
Settore SECS-P/01 - Economia Politica
Settore SECS-P/02 - Politica Economica
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Grieco&Hogarth_pre print.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Pre-print (manoscritto inviato all'editore)
Dimensione 117.83 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
117.83 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
1-s2.0-S0167487009000646-main.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 430.27 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
430.27 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/617668
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 33
social impact