This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

What is your level of overconfidence? A strictly incentive compatible measurement of absolute and relative overconfidence

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Diemo Urbig ()
Utz Weitzel ()
Julia Stauf ()

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on the appropriate measurement of overconfidence, in particular, its strictly incentive compatible measurement in experiments. Despite a number of significant advances in recent research, several important issues remain to be solved. These relate to the strictness of incentive compatibility, the identification of well-calibrated participants, the trichotomous classification into over- or underconfident and well-calibrated participants, and the generalization to measuring beliefs about the performance relative to other people. This paper develops a measurement of overconfidence that is improved regarding all four of these issues. We theoretically prove that our method is strictly incentive compatible and robust to risk attitudes within the framework of Cumulative Prospect Theory. Furthermore, our method allows the measurement of various levels of overconfidence and the direct comparison of absolute and relative confidence. We tested our method, and the results meet our expectations, replicate recent results, and show that a population can be simultaneously overconfident, well-calibrated, and underconfident. In our specific case, we find that more than ninety-five percent of the population believe to be better than twenty-five percent; about fifty percent believe to be better than fifty percent; and only seven percent believe to be better than seventy-five percent.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.uu.nl/NL/faculteiten/rebo/organisatie/departementen/departementeconomie/onderzoek/publicaties/DiscussionPapers/Documents/09-20.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Utrecht School of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 09-20.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 40 pages
Date of creation: Aug 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:use:tkiwps:0920

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 12 Janskerkhof, NL-3512 BL Utrecht
Phone: +31 30 253 9800
Fax: +31 30 253 7373
Email:
Web page: http://www.uu.nl/EN/faculties/leg/organisation/schools/schoolofeconomicsuse/Pages/default.aspx
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Thijs Knaap).

Related research
Keywords: Belief elicitation; Overconfidence; Better than average; Incentive compatibility;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search, Learning, and Information
D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
  1. Reinhard Selten & Michael Mitzkewitz & Gerald R. Uhlich, 1997. "Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 517-556, May.
    Other versions:
  2. Jinkwon Lee, 2008. "The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 19-41, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Colin Camerer & Dan Lovallo, 1999. "Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 306-318, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? There are NEP reports in over 80 fields that deliver new research to your email.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-23.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.