↓ Skip to main content

The disutility of the hard-easy effect in choice confidence

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
The disutility of the hard-easy effect in choice confidence
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2009
DOI 10.3758/pbr.16.1.204
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edgar C. Merkle

Abstract

A common finding in confidence research is the hard-easy effect, in which judges exhibit greater overconfidence for more difficult sets of questions. Many explanations have been advanced for the hard-easy effect, including systematic cognitive mechanisms, experimenter bias, random error, and statistical artifact. In this article, I mathematically derive necessary and sufficient conditions for observing a hard-easy effect, and I relate these conditions to previous explanations for the effect. I conclude that all types of judges exhibit the hard-easy effect in almost all realistic situations. Thus, the effect's presence cannot be used to distinguish between judges or to draw support for specific models of confidence elicitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
New Zealand 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 57 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 34%
Social Sciences 8 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 13 21%