IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v1y2017i11d10.1038_s41562-017-0215-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The idiosyncratic nature of confidence

Author

Listed:
  • Joaquin Navajas

    (University College London
    Universidad Torcuato Di Tella)

  • Chandni Hindocha

    (University College London
    University College London)

  • Hebah Foda

    (University College London)

  • Mehdi Keramati

    (University College London)

  • Peter E. Latham

    (University College London)

  • Bahador Bahrami

    (University College London)

Abstract

Confidence is the ‘feeling of knowing’ that accompanies decision-making. Bayesian theory proposes that confidence is a function solely of the perceived probability of being correct. Empirical research has suggested, however, that different individuals may perform different computations to estimate confidence from uncertain evidence. To test this hypothesis, we collected confidence reports in a task in which subjects made categorical decisions about the mean of a sequence. We found that for most individuals, confidence did indeed reflect the perceived probability of being correct. However, in approximately half of them, confidence also reflected a different probabilistic quantity: the perceived uncertainty in the estimated variable. We found that the contribution of both quantities was stable over weeks. We also observed that the influence of the perceived probability of being correct was stable across two tasks, one perceptual and one cognitive. Overall, our findings provide a computational interpretation of individual differences in human confidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Joaquin Navajas & Chandni Hindocha & Hebah Foda & Mehdi Keramati & Peter E. Latham & Bahador Bahrami, 2017. "The idiosyncratic nature of confidence," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(11), pages 810-818, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:1:y:2017:i:11:d:10.1038_s41562-017-0215-1
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0215-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0215-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-017-0215-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lejarraga, Tomás & Lejarraga, José, 2020. "Confidence and the description–experience distinction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 201-212.
    2. Marine Hainguerlot & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Vincent de Gardelle, 2023. "How Overconfidence Bias Influences Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making," Post-Print hal-04197403, HAL.
    3. Florent Meyniel, 2020. "Brain dynamics for confidence-weighted learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-27, June.
    4. Uri Hertz & Bahador Bahrami & Mehdi Keramati, 2018. "Stochastic satisficing account of confidence in uncertain value-based decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, April.
    5. Micha Heilbron & Florent Meyniel, 2019. "Confidence resets reveal hierarchical adaptive learning in humans," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, April.
    6. William T Adler & Wei Ji Ma, 2018. "Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-34, November.
    7. Manuel Rausch & Michael Zehetleitner, 2019. "The folded X-pattern is not necessarily a statistical signature of decision confidence," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:1:y:2017:i:11:d:10.1038_s41562-017-0215-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.