The disutility of the hard-easy effect in choice confidence
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.
- Casella, G., & Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical inference (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Ferrell, W. R., & McGoey, P. J. (1980). A model of calibration for subjective probabilities. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 26, 32–53.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar