Literature DB >> 14979805

Overconfidence in interval estimates.

Jack B Soll1, Joshua Klayman.   

Abstract

Judges were asked to make numerical estimates (e.g., "In what year was the first flight of a hot air balloon?"). Judges provided high and low estimates such that they were X% sure that the correct answer lay between them. They exhibited substantial overconfidence: The correct answer fell inside their intervals much less than X% of the time. This contrasts with choices between 2 possible answers to a question, which showed much less overconfidence. The authors show that overconfidence in interval estimates can result from variability in setting interval widths. However, the main cause is that subjective intervals are systematically too narrow given the accuracy of one's information-sometimes only 40% as large as necessary to be well calibrated. The degree of overconfidence varies greatly depending on how intervals are elicited. There are also substantial differences among domains and between male and female judges. The authors discuss the possible psychological mechanisms underlying this pattern of findings.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14979805     DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  12 in total

1.  A simple remedy for overprecision in judgment.

Authors:  Uriel Haran; Don A Moore; Carey K Morewedge
Journal:  Judgm Decis Mak       Date:  2010-12

2.  Perceived versus predicted risks of colorectal cancer and self-reported colonoscopies by members of mismatch repair gene mutation-carrying families who have declined genetic testing.

Authors:  Louisa Flander; Andrew Speirs-Bridge; Alison Rutstein; Heather Niven; Aung Ko Win; Driss Ait Ouakrim; John L Hopper; Finlay Macrae; Louise Keogh; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Are Experts Well-Calibrated? An Equivalence-Based Hypothesis Test.

Authors:  Gayan Dharmarathne; Anca M Hanea; Andrew Robinson
Journal:  Entropy (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 2.738

4.  Capturing richer information: On establishing the validity of an interval-valued survey response mode.

Authors:  Zack Ellerby; Christian Wagner; Stephen B Broomell
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-09-07

Review 5.  Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Laura Bojke; Marta Soares; Karl Claxton; Abigail Colson; Aimée Fox; Christopher Jackson; Dina Jankovic; Alec Morton; Linda Sharples; Andrea Taylor
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  Gender Differences in Performance Predictions: Evidence from the Cognitive Reflection Test.

Authors:  Patrick Ring; Levent Neyse; Tamas David-Barett; Ulrich Schmidt
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-11-01

7.  Salient knowledge that others are also evaluating reduces judgment extremity.

Authors:  Claire I Tsai; Min Zhao; Dilip Soman
Journal:  J Acad Mark Sci       Date:  2021-09-29

8.  Effects of question formats on causal judgments and model evaluation.

Authors:  Yiyun Shou; Michael Smithson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-04-21

9.  Joy Leads to Overconfidence, and a Simple Countermeasure.

Authors:  Philipp Koellinger; Theresa Treffers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Eliciting improved quantitative judgements using the IDEA protocol: A case study in natural resource management.

Authors:  Victoria Hemming; Terry V Walshe; Anca M Hanea; Fiona Fidler; Mark A Burgman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.