Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments, especially when confidence is relatively high. [1] [2] Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities.
Hindsight bias may lead to overconfidence and malpractice in regards to physicians. Hindsight bias and overconfidence is often attributed to the number of years of experience the physician has. After a procedure, physicians may have a "knew it the whole time" attitude, when in reality they may not have known it.
Hubris (/ ˈ h juː b r ɪ s /; from Ancient Greek ὕβρις (húbris) 'pride, insolence, outrage'), or less frequently hybris (/ ˈ h aɪ b r ɪ s /), [1] describes a personality quality of extreme or excessive pride [2] or dangerous overconfidence and complacency, [3] often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance. [4]
In a 1994 study, 37 psychology students were asked to estimate how long it would take to finish their senior theses.The average estimate was 33.9 days. They also estimated how long it would take "if everything went as well as it possibly could" (averaging 27.4 days) and "if everything went as poorly as it possibly could" (averaging 48.6 days).
Victory disease occurs in military history when complacency or arrogance, brought on by a victory or a series of victories, makes an engagement end disastrously for a commander and his forces. [ 1 ] A commander may disdain the enemy, and believe his own invincibility, leading his troops to disaster.
The idea that ambiguity moderates illusory superiority has empirical research support from a study involving two conditions: in one, participants were given criteria for assessing a trait as ambiguous or unambiguous, and in the other participants were free to assess the traits according to their own criteria.
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that, if an event (whose occurrences are independent and identically distributed) has occurred less frequently than expected, it is more likely to happen again in the future (or vice versa).
The term "curse of knowledge" was coined in a 1989 Journal of Political Economy article by economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber.The aim of their research was to counter the "conventional assumptions in such (economic) analyses of asymmetric information in that better-informed agents can accurately anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents".