Individual differences in overconfidence: A new measurement approach

Overconfidence plays a role in a large number of individual decision biases and has been considered a “meta-bias” for this reason. However, since overconfidence is measured behaviorally with respect to particular tasks (in which performance varies across individuals), it is unclear if people generally vary in terms of their general overconfidence. We investigated this issue using a novel measure: The Generalized Overconfidence Task (GOT). The GOT is a difficult perception test that asks participants to identify objects in fuzzy (“adversarial”) images. Critically, participants’ estimated performance on the task is not related to their actual performance. Instead, variation in estimated performance, we argue, arises from generalized overconfidence: i.e., people indicating a cognitive skill for which they have no basis. In a series of studies (total N = 1,293), the GOT was more predictive when looking at a broad range of behavioural outcomes than two other overestimation tasks (cognitive and numeracy) and did not display substantial overlap with conceptually related measures (Studies 1a and 1b). In Studies 2a and 2b, the GOT showed superior reliability in a test-retest design compared to the other overconfidence measures (i.e., cognitive and numeracy measures), particularly when collecting confidence ratings after each image and an estimated performance score. Finally, the GOT is a strong predictor of a host of behavioural outcomes, including conspiracy beliefs, bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, and the ability to discern news headlines.