Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2005
  • Online publication date: February 2010

8 - Subjective Confidence and the Sampling of Knowledge

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In many situations people must, at least implicitly, make subjective judgments about how certain they are. Such judgments are part of decisions about whether to collect more information, whether to undertake a risky course of action, which contingencies to plan for, and so on. Underlying such decisions are subjective judgments about the quality of the decision maker's information. Accordingly, many researchers have been interested in the mental processes underlying such judgments, which go under the general label of confidence.

There are many ways in which confidence can be expressed, both in the real world and in the research lab. For example, Yaniv and Foster (1995) present the concept of grain size. People communicate their confidence in an estimate via the precision (grain size) with which they express it. “I think it was during the last half of the nineteenth century” implies a different degree of confidence than “I think it was around 1875.” Listeners expect speakers to choose a grain size appropriate to their level of knowledge. People also use a variety of verbal probability terms to describe confidence in their predictions, choices, and estimates (e.g., “I'm pretty sure …,” “It's definitely not …,” “I really don't know, but …”), which people understand to imply different degrees of certainty (Wallsten & Budescu, 1983; Zimmer, 1984).

In the lab, most studies use one of three predominant paradigms.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
References
Block, R. A., & Harper, D. R. (1991). Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and-adjustment hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 188–207
Budescu, D. V., Erev, I., & Wallsten, T. S. (1997). On the importance of random error in the study of probability judgment. Part II: New theoretical developments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 157–171
Budescu, D. V., Wallsten, T. S., & Au, W. T. (1997). On the importance of random error in the study of probability judgment. Part II: Applying the stochastic judgment model to detect systematic trends. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 172–188
Clemen, R. T. (1996). Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing
Clemen, R. T. (2001). Assessing 10–50–90s: A surprise. Decision Analysis Newsletter, 20(1), 2, 15
Dawes, R. M. (2001). Everyday irrationality. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press
Dawes, R. M., & Mulford, M. (1996). The false consensus effect and overconfidence: Flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 201–211
Doherty, M. E., Mynatt, C. R., Tweeney, R. D., & Schiavo, M. D. (1979). Pseudodiagnosticity. Acta Psychologica, 43, 111–121
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391–396
Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101, 519–527
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659–676
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). Betting on one good reason: The take the best heuristic. In Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 75–96). New York: Oxford University Press
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528
Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. New York: Oxford University Press
Hoch, S. J. (1984). Availability and interference in predictive judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 649–662
Hoch, S. J. (1985). Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 719–731
Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221–233
Juslin, P. (1993). An explanation of the hard-easy effect in studies of realism of confidence in one's general knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 55–71
Juslin, P. (1994). The overconfidence phenomenon as a consequence of informal experimenter-guided selection of almanac items. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 226–246
Juslin, P., Olsson, H., & Björkman, M. (1997). Brunswikian and Thurstonian origins of bias in probability assessment: On the interpretation of stochastic components of judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 189–209
Juslin, P., & Persson, M. (2002). PROBabilities from EXemplars (PROBEX): A “lazy” algorithm for probabilistic inference from generic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 26, 563–607
Juslin, P., Wennerholm, P., & Olsson, H. (1999). Format dependence in subjective probability calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 1038–1052
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Hansson, P. (2003). The naïve intuitive statistician: A sampling model of format dependence in probability judgment. Manuscript, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2000). Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard-easy effect. Psychological Review, 107, 384–396
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2003). Calibration, additivity, and source independence of probability judgments in general knowledge and sensory discrimination tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 34–51
Kareev, Y., Arnon, S., & Horwitz-Zeliger, R. (2002). On the misperception of variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 287–297
Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. In Busemeyer, J. R., Hastie, R., & Medin, D. L. (Eds.), Decision making from the perspective of cognitive psychology (pp. 385–418). New York: Academic Press
Klayman, J., & Brown, K. (1993). Debias the environment instead of the judge: An alternative approach to reducing error in diagnostic (and other) judgment. Cognition, 49, 97–122
Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., González-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 216–247
Koehler, D. J. (1991). Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 499–519
Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L., & Griffin, D. (2002). In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 686–715). New York: Cambridge University Press
Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 159–183
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of subjective probabilities: The state of the art up to 1980. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). New York: Cambridge University Press
McKenzie, C. R. M. (1998). Taking into account the strength of an alternative hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 771–792
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164
Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 438–452
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 33, 7–17
Selvidge, J. E. (1980). Assessing the extremes of probability distributions by the fractile method. Decision Sciences, 11, 493–502
Slowiaczek, L. M., Klayman, J., Sherman, S. J., & Skov, R. B. (1992). Information selection and use in hypothesis testing: What is a good question, and what is a good answer?Memory & Cognition, 20, 392–405
Sniezek, J. A., Paese, P. W., & Switzer, F. S. C. (1990). The effects of choosing on confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 264–282
Soll, J. B. (1996). Determinants of overconfidence and miscalibration: The roles of random error and ecological structure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 117–137
Soll, J. B., & Klayman, J. (2004). Overconfidence in interval estimates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 299–314
Spetzler, C. S., & Staël von Holstein, C.-A. S. (1975). Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Science, 22, 340–358
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547–567
Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1983). Encoding subjective probabilities: A psychological and psychometric review. Management Science, 29, 151–173
Yaniv, I., & Foster, D. P. (1995). Graininess of judgment under uncertainty: An accuracy informativeness trade-off. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 424–432
Zimmer, A. C. (1984). A model for the interpretation of verbal predictions. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 20, 121–134