Overconfident people are more exposed to “black swan” events: a case study of avalanche risk

Abstract

Overconfidence is a well-established bias in which someone’s subjective confidence in their own judgment is systematically greater than their objective accuracy. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that overconfident people increase their exposure to risk. In this paper, we test whether overconfident backcountry skiers underestimate the probability of incurring a snow avalanche accident. An avalanche accident is a typical “black swan” event as defined by Taleb (The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable, Random House, New York, 2007) because it has a very low probability of occurring but with potentially dramatic consequences. To consider black swan events when studying overconfidence is particularly important, in light of previous findings on the role of overconfidence when feedbacks on tasks previously performed are inconclusive and infrequent. We run our test by measuring individual overconfidence using standard tools from the literature and then use a random effect logit model to measure its effect on the probability to take the ski route. We show that (1) overconfidence is widespread in our sample; (2) practitioners who are more prone to overestimate their knowledge are also more likely to take risks associated with a ski trip under the threat of avalanche danger, a result robust to a set of specification tests we perform. This suggests that overconfident people are more exposed to black swan events, by taking a risky decision that can bring about fatal consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

(Source: www.aineva.it, authors’ calculations)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Weather&Avalanche reports are released on a regular basis by local agencies and describe the conditions of the weather and of the snowpack in a specific area. They also provide a forecast for the coming days.

  2. 2.

    Authors calculations based on Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) statistics, which can be found at the following link: http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/137546.

  3. 3.

    Terminology about heuristics and biases is generally borrowed from the psychology literature and can acquire different meanings. This is the case for the term overconfidence, which has frequently been stretched beyond its original definition. In some research fields, in fact, it has been used to refer to the “better-than-average” effect (Svenson 1981), unrealistic optimism (Weinstein 1980) and illusion of control (Langer and Roth 1975).

  4. 4.

    Since the recruitment procedure fully preserves the anonymity of the respondents, there was no way of obtaining their written consent. The protocol has been approved by the Comitato Etico per la sperimentazione con l'essere umano (Ethics Committee) of the University of Trento.

  5. 5.

    The European Avalanche Danger Scale ranges from 1 (low) to 5 (very high). The Blachère scale for the level of the route ranges from MSA to OSA.

  6. 6.

    Some respondents contribute less than 9 answers since we excluded from the analysis answers referring to routes that the respondent reported to not know.

  7. 7.

    Geographical area, gender, years of experience, age at which started practicing, alpine guide/alpine club instructor, already knows the tour, number of tours per season, level of experience of the usual partners, self-assessed level of ability, knowledge of WA report keywords.

  8. 8.

    Results hold using alternative specifications of the regression, considering both a probit and a linear probability model (in both cases clustering the observations at the respondent level). Results are available upon request.

  9. 9.

    Accessed in April 2018.

References

  1. Agresti A (2013) Categorical data analysis. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anwar S, Loughran T (2011) Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49:667–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blais AR, Weber EU (2006) A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgm Decis Mak 1(1):33

    Google Scholar 

  4. Camchong J, Goodie AS, McDowell JE, Gilmore CS, Clementz BA (2007) A cognitive neuroscience approach to studying the role of overconfidence in problem gambling. J Gambl Stud 23(2):185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Camerer C, Lovallo D (1999) Overconfidence and excess entry: an experimental approach. Am Econ Rev 89(1):306–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DellaVigna S, Malmendier U (2006) Paying not to go to the gym. Am Econ Rev 96(3):694–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eurostat (2012). European statistics on accidents at work (ESAW)

  8. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1977) Knowing with certainty: the appropriateness of extreme confidence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 3(4):552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fiske SE, Taylor SE (2007) Social cognition. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Furman N, Shooter W, Schumann S (2010) The roles of heuristics, avalanche forecast, and risk propensity in the decision making of backcountry skiers. Leis Sci 32(5):453469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodie AS (2003) The effects of control on betting: paradoxical betting on items of high confidence with low value. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 29(4):598–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heaton JB (2002) Managerial optimism and corporate finance. Financ Manag 31(2):33–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX (2013) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hudgens-Haney ME, Hamm JP, Goodie AS, Krusemark EA, McDowell JE, Clementz BA (2013) Neural correlates of the impact of control on decision making in pathological gambling. Biol Psychol 92(2):365–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson DD (2009) Overconfidence and war. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson DD, Tierney D (2011) The Rubicon theory of war: how the path to conflict reaches the point of no return. Int Secur 36(1):7–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Klayman J, Soll JB, Gonzalez-Vallejo C, Barlas S (1999) Overconfidence: it depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 79(3):216–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Langer EJ (1975) The illusion of control. J Personal Soc Psychol 32(2):311–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Langer EJ, Roth J (1975) Heads I win, tails it’s chance: the illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. J Personal Soc Psychol 32(6):951–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Larson S (2006) Human factors in Avalanche incidents. http://www.summitpost.org/human-factors-in-avalanche-incidents/188636

  21. Leiter AM (2011) The sense of snow—individuals’ perception of fatal avalanche events. J Environ Psychol 31(4):361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B (1977) Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organ Behav Hum Perform 20:159–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Phillips LD, Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980 (1982) In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 275–324

    Google Scholar 

  24. Malmendier U, Tate G (2005) CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. J Finance 60(6):2661–2700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Malmendier U, Taylor T (2015) On the verges of overconfidence. J Econ Perspect 29(4):3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Moore DA, Healy PJ (2008) The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol Rev 115(2):502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Munter W (2009) Drei mal drei (3x3) Lawinen: Risikomanagement im Wintersport. Bergverlag Rother, Oberhaching

    Google Scholar 

  28. Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roll R (1986) The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. J Bus 59(2):197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ronis DL, Yates JF (1987) Components of probability judgment accuracy: individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 40(2):193–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schimelpfenig T (2003) Teaching safety awareness. In: Gookin J (ed) NOLS wilderness educator notebook. National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, pp 101–104

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shefrin H (2001) Behavioral corporate finance. J Appl Corp Finance 14(3):113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Soll JB, Milkman KL, Payne JW (2014) A user’s guide to de biasing. In: Keren G, Wu G (eds) Handbook of judgment and decision making. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  34. Statman M, Sepe JF (1989) Project termination announcements and the market value of the firm. Financ Manag 18(4):74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Svenson O (1981) Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Physiol 47(2):143–148

    Google Scholar 

  36. Taleb NN (2007) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Taylor SE, Brown JD (1988) Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol Bull 103(2):193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tuchman BW (2011) The march of folly: from Troy to Vietnam. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak 15(4):263–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Weinstein N (1980) Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Personal Soc Psychol 39(5):806–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wooldridge J (2006) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. South-Western, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zuckerman M, Knee CR, Kieffer SC, Rawsthorne L, Bruce LM (1996) Beliefs in realistic and unrealistic control: assessment and implications. J Personal 64(2):435–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Accademia della Montagna del Trentino for financial support; Ulrike Malmendier, Derek Stemple and William J. Weber for critical reading of the manuscript; Andrea Ichino for suggesting the robustness checks on our results; seminar participants at IZA, in particular Arnaud Chevalier, for their helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrico Rettore.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 192 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (ZIP 1 kb)

Appendix A

Appendix A

Here, we consider the case in which the explanatory variable affected by measurement errors—the overconfidence score in our case—is included in the regression together with other explanatory variables. The regression coefficient \( \beta_{a} \) in Eq. (4) is the marginal effect of a unit variation of the true overconfidence level \( a_{i} \) on \( \alpha_{i} \), the largest level of risk the ith respondent is available to take (and, by that way, the probability of undertaking the route) holding the other explanatory variables constant. By holding the other explanatory variables constant, the variance of the overconfidence score relevant to Eq. (10) falls to \( \sigma_{a}^{2} \left( {1 - R_{a}^{2} } \right) \), where \( R_{a}^{2} \) is the proportion of the variance of the true overconfidence score explained by the regression on the other explanatory variables included in Eq. (4).

Clearly, \( R_{a}^{2} \) cannot be directly measured since the regression of the true overconfidence on the other explanatory variable is not feasible. The feasible regression is the one of \( z_{i.} \)—the observable overconfidence score—on the other explanatory variables. Let \( R_{z}^{2} \) be the fraction of the variance of \( z_{i.} \) explained by this regression. Then, the following identity holds:

$$ \left( {A1} \right) R_{z}^{2} = \frac{{\sigma_{a}^{2} R_{a}^{2} }}{{\sigma_{a}^{2} + \sigma_{v.}^{2} }} , $$

from which we recover:

$$ \left( {A2} \right) R_{a}^{2} = \frac{{R_{z}^{2} \left( {\sigma_{a}^{2} + \sigma_{v.}^{2} } \right)}}{{\sigma_{a}^{2} }} $$

This way we recover the multiplicative attenuation bias as:

$$ \left( {A3} \right) \left[ {\frac{{\sigma_{a}^{2} \left( {1 - R_{a}^{2} } \right)}}{{\sigma_{a}^{2} \left( {1 - R_{a}^{2} } \right) + \sigma_{v.}^{2} }}} \right]^{0.5} $$

In the case of the regression of the observable overconfidence score \( z_{i.} \) on the other explanatory variables, results are those in Table 5. The \( R^{2} \) of this regression is as large as 0.086, definitely a very low value. But this is driven by the large variance of the measurement error on the overconfidence score. By taking it into account as in \( \left( {A2} \right) \), the \( R^{2} \) of the regression of the true overconfidence on the other explanatory variables turns out as large as:

Table 5 OLS regression of the overconfidence score on the individual characteristics included as control variables in the random effect logit regression
$$ R_{a}^{2} = \frac{{0.086 \left( {25.03 + 70.06} \right)}}{25.03} = 0.33 $$

Finally, the attenuation bias resulting from \( \left( {A3} \right) \) turns out as large as:

$$ \left[ {\frac{{25.03\left( {1 - 0.33} \right)}}{{25.03\left( {1 - 0.33} \right) + 70.06}}} \right]^{0.5} = 0.4395 , $$

just marginally lower than the one previously found (0.51 in (16)). As a result, the bias-corrected estimate for the effect of one standard variation of the true overconfidence is 0.1516, just slightly higher than 0.1308, the estimate in Sect. 3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonini, N., Pighin, S., Rettore, E. et al. Overconfident people are more exposed to “black swan” events: a case study of avalanche risk. Empir Econ 57, 1443–1467 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1489-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive bias
  • Risky decision
  • Backcountry skiing
  • Measurement errors
  • Logit model

JEL Classification

  • D12
  • D83
  • I12