IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v120y2013i1p73-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Windschitl, Paul D.
  • Scherer, Aaron M.
  • Smith, Andrew R.
  • Rose, Jason P.

Abstract

Previous studies that have directly manipulated outcome desirability have often found little effect on likelihood judgments (i.e., no desirability bias or wishful thinking). The present studies tested whether selections of new information about outcomes would be impacted by outcome desirability, thereby biasing likelihood judgments. In Study 1, participants made predictions about novel outcomes and then selected additional information to read from a buffet. They favored information supporting their prediction, and this fueled an increase in confidence. Studies 2 and 3 directly manipulated outcome desirability through monetary means. If a target outcome (randomly preselected) was made especially desirable, then participants tended to select information that supported the outcome. If made undesirable, less supporting information was selected. Selection bias was again linked to subsequent likelihood judgments. These results constitute novel evidence for the role of selective exposure in cases of overconfidence and desirability bias in likelihood judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Windschitl, Paul D. & Scherer, Aaron M. & Smith, Andrew R. & Rose, Jason P., 2013. "Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 73-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:120:y:2013:i:1:p:73-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812001239
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.10.002?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronis, David L. & Yates, J. Frank, 1987. "Components of probability judgment accuracy: Individual consistency and effects of subject matter and assessment method," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 193-218, October.
    2. Klayman, Joshua & Soll, Jack B. & Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Barlas, Sema, 1999. "Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask, , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 216-247, September.
    3. Radzevick, Joseph R. & Moore, Don A., 2008. "Myopic biases in competitions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 206-218, November.
    4. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    5. Windschitl, Paul D. & Smith, Andrew R. & Rose, Jason P. & Krizan, Zlatan, 2010. "The desirability bias in predictions: Going optimistic without leaving realism," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 33-47, January.
    6. van Dijk, Wilco W. & Zeelenberg, Marcel & van der Pligt, Joop, 2003. "Blessed are those who expect nothing: Lowering expectations as a way of avoiding disappointment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 505-516, August.
    7. Larrick, Richard P. & Burson, Katherine A. & Soll, Jack B., 2007. "Social comparison and confidence: When thinking you're better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 76-94, January.
    8. Russo, J. Edward & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Meloy, Margaret G., 1996. "The Distortion of Information during Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 102-110, April.
    9. McKenzie, Craig R. M., 1997. "Underweighting Alternatives and Overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 141-160, August.
    10. Sieck, Winston R. & Merkle, Edgar C. & Van Zandt, Trisha, 2007. "Option fixation: A cognitive contributor to overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 68-83, May.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:449-459 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Posavac, Steven S. & Ratchford, Mark & Bollen, Nicolas P.B. & Sanbonmatsu, David M., 2019. "Premature infatuation and commitment in individual investing decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 245-259.
    4. J. Edward Russo & Jonathan C. Corbin, 2016. "Not by desire alone: The role of cognitive consistency in the desirability bias," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 449-459, September.
    5. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    6. Black, J. Stewart & van Esch, Patrick, 2020. "AI-enabled recruiting: What is it and how should a manager use it?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 215-226.

    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. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    2. Carlson, Kurt A. & Guha, Abhijit, 2011. "Leader-focused search: The impact of an emerging preference on information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 133-141, May.
    3. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Nicolao Bonini & Stefania Pighin & Enrico Rettore & Lucia Savadori & Federico Schena & Sara Tonini & Paolo Tosi, 2019. "Overconfident people are more exposed to “black swan” events: a case study of avalanche risk," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1443-1467, October.
    5. Ryvkin, Dmitry & Krajč, Marian & Ortmann, Andreas, 2012. "Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1012-1031.
    6. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Madrid, Hector P., 2016. "Overconfidence in personnel selection: When and why unstructured interview information can hurt hiring decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 27-44.
    7. Dmytro Babik & Rahul Singh & Xia Zhao & Eric W. Ford, 2017. "What you think and what I think: Studying intersubjectivity in knowledge artifacts evaluation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 31-56, February.
    8. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    9. Michailova, Julija, 2010. "Development of the overconfidence measurement instrument for the economic experiment," MPRA Paper 34799, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Nov 2011.
    10. Maurizio Zollo, 2009. "Superstitious Learning with Rare Strategic Decisions: Theory and Evidence from Corporate Acquisitions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 894-908, October.
    11. Markus Glaser & Martin Weber, 2007. "Overconfidence and trading volume," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 32(1), pages 1-36, June.
    12. Ferretti, Valentina & Guney, Sule & Montibeller, Gilberto & Winterfeldt, Detlof von, 2016. "Testing best practices to reduce the overconfidence bias in multi-criteria decision analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67179, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:572-585 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Krawczyk, Michał, 2012. "Incentives and timing in relative performance judgments: A field experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1240-1246.
    15. Anne-Sophie Chaxel & J. Edward Russo & Neda Kerimi, 2013. "Preference-driven biases in decision makers' information search and evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 561-576, September.
    16. DeKay, Michael L. & Miller, Seth A. & Schley, Dan R. & Erford, Breann M., 2014. "Proleader and antitrailer information distortion and their effects on choice and postchoice memory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 134-150.
    17. 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.
    18. Whitman, Jennifer C. & Woodward, Todd S., 2012. "Self-selection bias in hypothesis comparison," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 216-225.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:561-576 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Vetter, J. & Benlian, Alexander & Hess, T., 2011. "Overconfidence in IT Investment Decisions: Why Knowledge can be Boon and Bane at the same Time," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 58030, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    21. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    22. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2021. "Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:120:y:2013:i:1:p:73-86. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.