Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T16:20:08.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Is Confidence in Decisions Related to Feedback? Evidence from Random Samples of Real-World Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2010

Robin M. Hogarth
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Germany
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Umeå Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

A central theme of this book is how people learn from samples. In this chapter, we look at this issue from two viewpoints. First, we question the manner in which we – as scientists – sample the environments of the experimental participants who engage in the judgment and decision-making tasks that we study. To what extent are these samples representative of the natural decision-making ecology that our participants face in their everyday lives? Second, by actually sampling people's activities in their natural ecologies, we seek to characterize how they experience these environments. In particular, we investigate how one feature of environments (the presence or absence of feedback) affects inferences (the confidence people express in their decisions).

The first question is, of course, not new. For many years, psychologists have been concerned about how to generalize behavior from experimental evidence (see, e.g., Brunswik, 1956; Chapanis, 1961, 1967; Cronbach, 1975; Ebbesen & Konečni, 1980; Hammond, 1978; Hogarth, 1986; Lipshitz et al., 2001). I do not propose to add to this debate. Instead, the contribution is to demonstrate how the use of readily available technology can greatly facilitate random sampling of decision behavior outside the psychological laboratory. Indeed, as I shall argue in the following, obtaining appropriate samples of human decision behavior is not as difficult as might be imagined by researchers trained within experimental paradigms.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brunswik, E. (1944). Distal focusing of perception: Size constancy in a representative sample of situations. Psychological Monographs, 56 (254), 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (1981). The validity and utility of expert judgment. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago
Chapanis, A. (1961). Men, machines, and models. American Psychologist, 16, 113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapanis, A. (1967). The relevance of laboratory studies to practical situations. Ergonomics, 10, 557–577CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-CollinsGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526–536CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1980). On the external validity of decision-making research: What do we know about decisions in the real world? In Wallsten, T. S. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. (1980). Learning from experience and suboptimal rules in decision making. In Wallsten, T. S. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659–676CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, D. G., et al. (2001). Group report: Why and when do simple heuristics work? In Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R. (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: BantamGoogle Scholar
Hammond, K. R. (1978). Psychology's scientific revolution: Is it in danger? Reprint 211, Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
Harvey, N. (1997). Confidence in judgment. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 78–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Generalization in decision research: The role of formal models. IEEE Transactions in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-16(3), 439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Hurlburt, R. T. (1997). Randomly sampling thinking in the natural environment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 941–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isen, A. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In Lewis, M. & Haviland, J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 261–277). New York: GuilfordGoogle Scholar
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, 55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P. (1994). The overconfidence phenomenon as a consequence of informal experimenter-guided selection of almanac items. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 226–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olssen, H. (2000). Naïve empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard-easy effect. Psychological Review, 107, 384–396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 216–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 331–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, J., Martin, C. L., & Williams, T. M. (1988). Mood fluctuations: Women versus men and menstrual versus other cycles. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, A., & Winkler, R. L. (1984). Probability forecasting in meteorology. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 489–500Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2002). Winning decisions. New York: DoubledayGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1982). Reinforcement-induced behavioral stereotypy: How not to teach people to discover rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 23–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjöberg, L., & Magneberg, R. (1990). Action and emotion in everyday life. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 31, 9–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. (1999). Rushed, unhappy, and drained: An experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control, mood, and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 211, 453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×