A Model of Overconfidence
AbstractPeople use information about their ability to choose tasks. If more challenging tasks provide more accurate information about ability, people who care about and who are risk averse over their perception of their own ability will choose tasks that are not sufficiently challenging. Overestimation of ability raises utility by deluding people into believing that they are more able than they are in fact. Moderate overestimation of ability and overestimation of the precision of initial information leads people to choose tasks that raise expected output, however extreme overconfidence leads people to undertake tasks that are excessively challenging. Consistent with our results, psychologists have found that moderate overconfidence is both pervasive and advantageous and that people maintain such beliefs by underweighting new information about their ability.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number 4285.
Length: 25 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2009
Date of revision:
Publication status: published in: Pacific Economic Review, 2009, 14(4), 502-515
Contact details of provider:
Postal: IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org
Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Other versions of this item:
- D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics; Underlying Principles
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-07-17 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2009-07-17 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EVO-2009-07-17 (Evolutionary Economics)
- NEP-NEU-2009-07-17 (Neuroeconomics)
- NEP-UPT-2009-07-17 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Waldman, Michael, 1994. "Systematic Errors and the Theory of Natural Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 482-97, June.
- Kyle, Albert S & Wang, F Albert, 1997. " Speculation Duopoly with Agreement to Disagree: Can Overconfidence Survive the Market Test?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(5), pages 2073-90, December.
- Kuhnen, Camelia M. & Tymula, Agnieszka, 2008. "Rank expectations, feedback and social hierarchies," MPRA Paper 13428, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jan 2009.
- Heller, Yuval, 2010. "Overconfidence and risk dispersion," MPRA Paper 25893, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Antonio Filippin & Marco Paccagnella, 2012.
"Family background, self-confidence and economic outcomes,"
Temi di discussione (Economic working papers)
875, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
- Filippin, Antonio & Paccagnella, Marco, 2012. "Family background, self-confidence and economic outcomes," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 824-834.
- Filippin, Antonio & Paccagnella, Marco, 2011. "Family Background, Self-Confidence and Economic Outcomes," IZA Discussion Papers 6117, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Sällström, Susanna & Sjogren, Anna, 2002.
"Trapped, Delayed and Handicapped,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
3335, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.