Peer Input and Revised Judgment: Exploring the Effects of (Un) Biased Confidence1

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to test the effects of biased versus unbiased peer input on the revised judgments of others. After completing a set of knowledge items and assessing their confidence in each answer, subjects were: (a) given written input (in the form of answers and confidence assessments) from a peer who had completed the same set of items, and (b) allowed to revise their earlier answers and confidence assessments. Peer input was either overconfident, underconfident, or appropriately confident. Relative to appropriately confident input, both overconfident and underconfident input caused subjects’ accuracy in judgment to suffer. Overconfident input was particularly harmful because it led to more extreme overconfidence without any increase in accuracy. Practical implications of these results are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.