Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 204–213 | Cite as

The disutility of the hard-easy effect in choice confidence

Notes and Comment


A common finding in confidence research is the hard-easy effect, in which judges exhibit greater overconfidence for more difficult sets of questions. Many explanations have been advanced for the hard-easy effect, including systematic cognitive mechanisms, experimenter bias, random error, and statistical artifact. In this article, I mathematically derive necessary and sufficient conditions for observing a hard-easy effect, and I relate these conditions to previous explanations for the effect. I conclude that all types of judges exhibit the hard-easy effect in almost all realistic situations. Thus, the effect’s presence cannot be used to distinguish between judges or to draw support for specific models of confidence elicitation.


  1. Arkes, H. R., Christensen, C., Lai, C., & Blumer, C. (1987). Two methods of reducing overconfidence. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 39, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björkman, M. (1994). Internal cue theory: Calibration and resolution of confidence in general knowledge. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 58, 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casella, G., & Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical inference (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Confidence in intellectual vs. confidence in perceptual judgments. In E. D. Lantermann & H. Feger (Eds.), Similarity and choice: Papers in honor of Clyde Coombs (pp. 327–345). Bern: Han Huber.Google Scholar
  5. Dawes, R. M., & Mulford, M. (1996). The false consensus effect and overconfidence: Flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 65, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dougherty, M. R. P. (2001). Integration of the ecological and error models of overconfidence using a multiple-trace memory model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrell, W. R., & McGoey, P. J. (1980). A model of calibration for subjective probabilities. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 26, 32–53.Google Scholar
  9. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2003). Calibration, additivity, and source independence of probability judgments in general knowledge and sensory discrimination tasks. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 92, 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keren, G. (1988). On the ability of monitoring non-veridical perceptions and uncertain knowledge: Some calibration studies. Acta Psychologica, 67, 95–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? The calibration of probability judgments. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 20, 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lindsay, D. S., Nilsen, E., & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneity and witnesses’ versus investigators’ confidence in the accuracy of witnesses’ identification decisions. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McKenzie, C. R. M. (1997). Underweighting alternatives and overconfidence. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 71, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merkle, E. C., Sieck, W. R., & Van Zandt, T. (2008). Response error and processing biases in confidence judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 428–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merkle, E. C., & Van Zandt, T. (2006). An application of the Poisson race model to confidence calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mueller, S. T., & Weidemann, C. T. (2008). Decision noise: An explanation for observed violations of signal detection theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 465–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy, A. H., & Winkler, R. L. (1984). Probability forecasting in meteorology. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myung, I. J., & Pitt, M. A. (2001). Mathematical modeling. In H. Pash-ler (Series Ed.) & J. Wixted (Vol. Ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 429–460). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. O’Hagan, A., Buck, C. E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., Jenkinson, D. J., et al. (2006). Uncertain judgements: Eliciting experts’ probabilities. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olsson, H., Juslin, P., & Winman, A. (2008). Comments: The role of random error in confidence judgment: Reply to Merkle, Sieck, and Van Zandt. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Price, P. C. (1998). Effects of a relative-frequency elicitation question on likelihood judgment accuracy: The case of external correspondence. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 76, 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ronis, D. L., & Yates, J. F. (1987). Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 40, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sieck, W. R., Merkle, E. C., & Van Zandt, T. (2007). Option fixation: A cognitive contributor to overconfidence. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 103, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suantak, L., Bolger, F., & Ferrell, W. R. (1996). The hard-easy effect in subjective probability calibration. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomson, M. E., Önkal-Atay, D., Pollock, A. C., & Macaulay, A. (2003). The influence of trend strength on directional probabilistic currency predictions. International Journal of Forecasting, 19, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wallsten, T. S. (1996). An analysis of judgment research analyses. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 65, 220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWichita State UniversityWichita

Personalised recommendations