posted on 2009-10-25, 00:00authored byDon A. Moore, Paul J. Healy
This paper presents a reconciliation of the three distinct ways in which the research literature has
defined overconfidence: (1) overestimation of one’s actual performance, (2) overplacement of
one’s performance relative to others, and (3) excessive precision in one’s beliefs. Experimental
evidence shows that reversals of the first two (apparent underconfidence), when they occur, tend
to be on different types of tasks. On difficult tasks, people overestimate their actual
performances but also believe that they are worse than others; on easy tasks, people
underestimate their actual performances but believe they are better than others. This paper offers
a straightforward theory that can explain these inconsistencies. Overprecision appears to be
more persistent than either of the other two types of overconfidence, but its presence reduces the
magnitude of both overestimation and overplacement.