Decisions, actions, and the appropriateness of confidence in knowledge

This research examines the appropriateness of confidence (i.e., subjective probability judgments) in knowledge associated with decisions and actions of social importance. One hundred and thirty seven participants completed a 50 item questionnaire assessing their knowledge of the two leading candidates in the 1988 presidential election in the U.S.A. Ninety one of the respondents completed the questionnaire one week prior to the election, whereas the other 46 completed the questionnaire on election day shortly after voting. After each item in the questionnaire, all respondents indicated whether or not the item content represented a reason why they voted (or intended to vote) for or against the candidate to whom the item referred. Within-person results indicated that, in comparison to items that were not cited as reasons for voting intentions or voting behavior, items endorsed as reasons were characterized by better accuracy and resolution, but worse overconfidence. Between groups, decision makers were significantly more accurate and better calibrated than those who had not made a decision between the candidates. Implications of inappropriate confidence on decision making effectiveness are discussed.

[1]  Carl Martin Allwood,et al.  Response selection strategies and realism of confidence judgments , 1987 .

[2]  John R. Anderson.  Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications , 1980 .

[3]  D. Bem.  Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. , 1967, Psychological review.

[4]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[5]  H. Arkes,et al.  Two methods of reducing overconfidence , 1987 .

[6]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Reasons for confidence. , 1980 .

[7]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 1957 .

[8]  G. Brier.  VERIFICATION OF FORECASTS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY , 1950 .

[9]  Peter Ayton,et al.  Subjective confidence in forecasts: A response to fischhoff and MacGregor , 1986 .

[10]  G. Brier,et al.  External correspondence: Decompositions of the mean probability score , 1982 .

[11]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Influences on the appropriateness of confidence in judgment: Practice, effort, information, and decision-making , 1991 .

[12]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  The effect of choosing on confidence in choice , 1990 .

[13]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Performance feedback improves the resolution of confidence judgments , 1988 .

[14]  G. McClelland,et al.  Across-persons versus within-persons tests of expectancy-value models: A methodological note , 1989 .

[15]  A. H. Murphy.  A New Vector Partition of the Probability Score , 1973 .

[16]  J. Brehm.  Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[17]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Training for calibration. , 1980 .

[18]  David L. Ronis,et al.  Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method. , 1987 .

[19]  S. Lichtenstein,et al.  Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1 , 1977 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[21]  J. Kagan,et al.  Rational choice in an uncertain world , 1988 .

[22]  Peter Ayton,et al.  Task influences on judgemental forecasting , 1987 .

[23]  J. Frank Yates,et al.  Analyzing the accuracy of probability judgments for multiple events: An extension of the covariance decomposition , 1988 .

[24]  David L. Ronis,et al.  Probability judgment accuracy: China, Japan, and the United States , 1989 .