Identifying the Effects of Unjustified Confidence Versus Overconfidence

Lessons Learned from Two Analytic Methods

Published in: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, v. 27, no. 2, Apr. 2014, p. 134-145

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2013

by Andrew M. Parker, Eric R. Stone

Read More

Access further information on this document at Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

One of the most common findings in behavioral decision research is that people have unrealistic beliefs about how much they know. However, demonstrating that misplaced confidence exists does not necessarily mean that there are costs to it. This paper contrasts two approaches toward answering whether misplaced confidence is good or bad, which we have labeled the overconfidence and unjustified confidence approach. We first consider conceptual and analytic issues distinguishing these approaches. Then, we provide findings from a set of simulations designed to determine when the approaches produce different conclusions across a range of possible confidence–knowledge–outcome relationships. Finally, we illustrate the main findings from the simulations with three empirical examples drawn from our own data. We conclude that the unjustified confidence approach is typically the preferred approach, both because it is appropriate for testing a larger set of psychological mechanisms as well as for methodological reasons.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.