IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/9jw7a_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Absolute vs. relative success: Why overconfidence is an inefficient equilibrium

Author

Listed:
  • Solda, Alice
  • Ke, Changxia
  • von Hippel, Bill
  • Page, Lionel

Abstract

Overconfidence is one of the most ubiquitous biases in the social sciences, but the evidence regarding its overall costs and benefits is mixed. To test the possibility that overconfidence might yield important relative benefits that offset its absolute costs, we conducted an experiment (N=298 university students) in which pairs of participants bargain over the unequal allocation of a prize that was earned via a joint effort. We manipulated confidence using a binary noisy signal to investigate the causal effect of negotiators’ beliefs about their relative contribution on the outcome of the negotiation. Our results provide evidence that high levels of confidence lead to relative benefits (how much one earns compared to one’s partner) but absolute costs (how much money one receives overall). These results suggest that overconfidence creates an inefficient equilibrium whereby overconfident negotiators benefit over their partners even as they bring about joint losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Solda, Alice & Ke, Changxia & von Hippel, Bill & Page, Lionel, 2021. "Absolute vs. relative success: Why overconfidence is an inefficient equilibrium," SocArXiv 9jw7a_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:9jw7a_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9jw7a_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/604c2ff2474b1e012dca797d/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/9jw7a_v1?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. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Schwardmann, Peter & van der Weele, Joel, 2019. "Deception and self-deception," Munich Reprints in Economics 78222, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    3. Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal, 2003. "Monkeys reject unequal pay," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6955), pages 297-299, September.
    4. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    5. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    6. 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 2073-2090, December.
    7. Benos, Alexandros V., 1998. "Aggressiveness and survival of overconfident traders," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 353-383, September.
    8. Anderson, Cameron & Brion, Sebastien & Moore, Don A. & Kennedy, Jessica A., 2012. "A status-enhancement account of overconfidence," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt6s5812wf, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    9. Alice Soldà & Changxia Ke & Lionel Page & William von Hippel, 2020. "Strategically delusional," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 604-631, September.
    10. Babcock, Linda, et al, 1995. "Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1337-1343, December.
    11. Dennie van Dolder & Martijn J. van den Assem & Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 2015. "Standing United or Falling Divided? High Stakes Bargaining in a TV Game Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 402-407, May.
    12. Bock, Olaf & Baetge, Ingmar & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-120.
    13. Peter Schwardmann & Joël van der Weele, 2019. "Deception and self-deception," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 1055-1061, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Soldà, Alice & Ke, Changxia & von Hippel, William & Page, Lionel, 2021. "Absolute vs. relative success: Why overconfidence is an inefficient equilibrium," Working Papers 0700, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    2. repec:hal:journl:hal-04850419 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Xue, Nina, 2024. "Belief elicitation under competing motivations: Does it matter how you ask?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Heifetz, Aviad & Segev, Ella, 2004. "The evolutionary role of toughness in bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 117-134, October.
    5. Burro, Giovanni & Castagnetti, Alessandro, 2024. "The ego is no fool: Absence of motivated belief formation in strategic interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Suchon, Rémi & Houser, Daniel, 2022. "Image spillovers in groups and misreporting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 302-314.
    7. Pace, Davide D. & Imai, Taisuke & Schwardmann, Peter & van der Weele, Joël J., 2025. "Uncertainty about carbon impact and the willingness to avoid CO2 emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    8. Kai Barron & Christina Gravert, 2022. "Confidence and Career Choices: An Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 35-68, January.
    9. Thaler, Michael, 2021. "Gender differences in motivated reasoning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 501-518.
    10. Bicchieri, Cristina & Dimant, Eugen & Sonderegger, Silvia, 2023. "It's not a lie if you believe the norm does not apply: Conditional norm-following and belief distortion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 321-354.
    11. Flores, Lia Q. & Fonseca, Miguel A., 2024. "Do in-group biases lead to overconfidence in performance? Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    12. Kaplan, Steven N. & Sørensen, Morten & Zakolyukina, Anastasia A., 2022. "What is CEO overconfidence? Evidence from executive assessments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 409-425.
    13. Lawrence, Edward R. & Nguyen, Thanh D. & Wick, Benedikt, 2024. "Gender difference in overconfidence and household financial literacy," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    14. Julián Arévalo, editor., 2020. "Negociación y cooperación : teoría y experiencias en resolución de conflictos," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Economía, number 81, March.
    15. Anton Suvorov & Jeroen van de Ven & Marie Claire Villeval, 2024. "Selective Information Sharing and Group Delusion," Working Papers 2405, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    16. Bolte, Lukas & Fan, Tony Q., 2024. "Motivated mislearning: The case of correlation neglect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 647-663.
    17. Friehe, Tim & Pham, Cat Lam & Xemaire, Simon, 2024. "On the strategic choice of overconfident lawyers," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    18. Kai Barron & Christina Gravert, 2022. "Confidence and Career Choices: An Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 35-68, January.
    19. Jeroen Nieboer, 2022. "Positional enhancement in effort-based social comparisons," Discussion Papers 2022-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    20. Lian Xue & Stefania Sitzia & Theodore L. Turocy, 2022. "Concord and contention in a dynamic unstructured bargaining experiment with costly conflict," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 22-02, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    21. Celse, Jeremy & Karakostas, Alexandros & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2023. "Relative risk taking and social curiosity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 243-264.

    More about this item

    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:osf:socarx:9jw7a_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.