IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04383402.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Unpacking Overconfident Behavior When Betting on Oneself

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed Abdellaoui

    (HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales)

  • Han Bleichrodt

    (UA - Université d'Alicante, Espagne)

  • Cédric Gutierrez

    (Università Bocconi)

Abstract

Overconfident behavior, the excessive willingness to bet on one's performance, may be driven by optimistic beliefs and/or ambiguity attitudes. Separating these factors is key for understanding and correcting overconfident behavior, as they call for different corrective actions. We present a method to do so, which we implement in two incentivized experiments. The first experiment shows the importance of ambiguity attitudes for overconfident behavior. Optimistic ambiguity attitudes (ambiguity seeking) counterbalanced the effect of pessimistic beliefs, leading to neither over- nor underconfident behavior. The second experiment applies our method in contexts where overconfident behavior is expected to vary: easy versus hard tasks. Our results showed that task difficulty affected both beliefs and ambiguity attitudes. However, although beliefs were more optimistic for relative performance (rank) and more pessimistic for absolute performance (score) on easy tasks compared with hard tasks, ambiguity attitudes were always more optimistic on easy tasks for both absolute and relative performance. Our findings show the subtle interplay between beliefs and ambiguity attitudes: they can reinforce or offset each other, depending on the context, increasing or lowering overconfident behavior. This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: This work was supported by HEC Paris research budget and Bocconi junior researchers' grants. Supplemental Material: The data and online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.00165 .

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Cédric Gutierrez, 2023. "Unpacking Overconfident Behavior When Betting on Oneself," Post-Print hal-04383402, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04383402
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.00165
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04383402v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04383402v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2021.00165?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holt, Charles A. & Smith, Angela M., 2009. "An update on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 125-134, February.
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    3. David Tannenbaum & Craig R. Fox & Gülden Ülkümen, 2017. "Judgment Extremity and Accuracy Under Epistemic vs. Aleatory Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 497-518, February.
    4. Kevin A. Bryan & András Tilcsik & Brooklynn Zhu, 2017. "Which Entrepreneurs Are Coachable and Why?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 312-316, May.
    5. Jeremy Clark & Lana Friesen, 2009. "Overconfidence in Forecasts of Own Performance: An Experimental Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 229-251, January.
    6. Arnaldo Camuffo & Alessandro Cordova & Alfonso Gambardella & Chiara Spina, 2020. "A Scientific Approach to Entrepreneurial Decision Making: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 564-586, February.
    7. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    8. Chow, Clare Chua & Sarin, Rakesh K, 2001. "Comparative Ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 129-139, March.
    9. Cédric Gutierrez & Thomas Åstebro & Tomasz Obloj, 2020. "The Impact of Overconfidence and Ambiguity Attitude on Market Entry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 308-329, March.
    10. Chew, Soo Hong & Sagi, Jacob S., 2008. "Small worlds: Modeling attitudes toward sources of uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 1-24, March.
    11. José Lara Resende & George Wu, 2010. "Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 109-132, April.
    12. Jonathan F Schulz & Christian Thöni, 2016. "Overconfidence and Career Choice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    13. Malmendier, Ulrike & Tate, Geoffrey, 2008. "Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 20-43, July.
    14. Stephen V. Burks & Jeffrey P. Carpenter & Lorenz Goette & Aldo Rustichini, 2013. "Overconfidence and Social Signalling," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 949-983.
    15. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    16. Stefan Trautmann & Ferdinand Vieider & Peter Wakker, 2008. "Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 225-243, June.
    17. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Emmanuel Kemel & Olivier l’Haridon, 2021. "Measuring Beliefs Under Ambiguity," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 599-612, March.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:3:p:192-199 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Pavel Atanasov & Phillip Rescober & Eric Stone & Samuel A. Swift & Emile Servan-Schreiber & Philip Tetlock & Lyle Ungar & Barbara Mellers, 2017. "Distilling the Wisdom of Crowds: Prediction Markets vs. Prediction Polls," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 691-706, March.
    20. Herz, Holger & Schunk, Daniel & Zehnder, Christian, 2014. "How do judgmental overconfidence and overoptimism shape innovative activity?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-23.
    21. David Tannenbaum & Craig R. Fox & Gülden Ülkümen, 2017. "Judgment Extremity and Accuracy Under Epistemic vs. Aleatory Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 497-518, February.
    22. Zhang, Stephen X. & Foo, Maw-Der & Vassolo, Roberto S., 2021. "The ramifications of effectuation on biases in entrepreneurship – Evidence from a mixed-method approach," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 15(C).
    23. D. Urbig & J. Stauf & U. Weitzel, 2009. "What is your level of overconfidence? A strictly incentive compatible measurement of absolute and relative overconfidence," Working Papers 09-20, Utrecht School of Economics.
    24. Erik Hoelzl & Aldo Rustichini, 2005. "Overconfident: Do You Put Your Money On It?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(503), pages 305-318, April.
    25. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    26. William M. P. Klein & Jennifer L. Cerully & Matthew M. Monin & Don A. Moore, 2010. "Ability, chance, and ambiguity aversion: Revisiting the competence hypothesis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(3), pages 192-199, June.
    27. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 39-49, February.
    28. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    29. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    30. Stefan T. Trautmann & Gijs Kuilen, 2015. "Belief Elicitation: A Horse Race among Truth Serums," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(589), pages 2116-2135, December.
    31. Theo Offerman & Joep Sonnemans & Gijs Van De Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2009. "A Truth Serum for Non-Bayesians: Correcting Proper Scoring Rules for Risk Attitudes ," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1461-1489.
    32. Alexander Coutts, 2019. "Good news and bad news are still news: experimental evidence on belief updating," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 369-395, June.
    33. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    34. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt, 2015. "Testing Ambiguity Models through the Measurement of Probabilities for Gains and Losses," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 77-100, May.
    35. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    36. Soheil Hooshangi & George Loewenstein, 2018. "The Impact of Idea Generation and Potential Appropriation on Entrepreneurship: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 64-82, January.
    37. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    38. Aurélien Baillon, 2008. "Eliciting Subjective Probabilities Through Exchangeable Events: An Advantage and a Limitation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 76-87, June.
    39. Peiran Jiao, 2020. "Payoff-Based Belief Distortion," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1416-1444.
    40. Li, Chen & Turmunkh, Uyanga & Wakker, Peter P., 2020. "Social and strategic ambiguity versus betrayal aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 272-287.
    41. Chew Soo Hong & Jacob S. Sagi, 2006. "Event Exchangeability: Probabilistic Sophistication Without Continuity or Monotonicity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 771-786, May.
    42. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    43. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    44. Doron Sonsino & Yaron Lahav & Yefim Roth, 2022. "Reaching for Returns in Retail Structured Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 466-486, January.
    45. Trautmann, S.T. & van de Kuilen, G., 2011. "Belief Elicitation : A Horse Race among Truth Serums," Other publications TiSEM c62319d0-674f-4def-8e9f-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    46. Cerroni, Simone & Notaro, Sandra & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2012. "Eliciting and estimating valid subjective probabilities: An experimental investigation of the exchangeability method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 201-215.
    47. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    48. Grieco, Daniela & Hogarth, Robin M., 2009. "Overconfidence in absolute and relative performance: The regression hypothesis and Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 756-771, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2024. "Measuring natural source dependence," Post-Print hal-04866878, HAL.
    2. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2024. "Measuring natural source dependence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(2), pages 379-416, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2024. "Measuring natural source dependence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(2), pages 379-416, April.
    2. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2024. "Measuring natural source dependence," Post-Print hal-04866878, HAL.
    3. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    4. Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti & Michele Santoni, 2024. "Testing source influence on ambiguity reaction: Preference and insensitivity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 349-411, December.
    5. Anna Maffioletti & Michele Santoni, 2019. "Emotion and Knowledge in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-28, September.
    6. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    7. Cédric Gutierrez & Thomas Åstebro & Tomasz Obloj, 2020. "The Impact of Overconfidence and Ambiguity Attitude on Market Entry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 308-329, March.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    9. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    10. Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2021. "Measuring natural source dependence," Working Papers hal-03330409, HAL.
    11. Ronald Klingebiel & Feibai Zhu, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion and the degree of ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 299-324, December.
    12. Masaki Aoyagi & Takehito Masuda & Naoko Nishimura, 2021. "Strategic Uncertainty and Probabilistic Sophistication," ISER Discussion Paper 1117, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    13. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2016. "In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 363-387, March.
    15. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    16. Sergio Almeida & Marcos Rangel, 2016. "Probabilistic Sophistication, Sources Of Uncertainty, And Cognitive Ability: Experimental Evidence," Anais do XLII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 42nd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 131, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    17. Li, Zheng & Hensher, David A. & Zeng, Jingjing, 2022. "Travel choice behaviour under uncertainty in real-market settings: A source-dependent utility approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    18. Henkel, Luca, 2024. "Experimental evidence on the relationship between perceived ambiguity and likelihood insensitivity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 312-338.
    19. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier L'Haridon & Author-Name: Chen Li, 2013. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment using initial public offerings on a stock market," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 201331, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    20. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-04383402. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.