Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2507.15568

Explaining Apparently Inaccurate Self-assessments of Relative Performance: A Replication and Adaptation of 'Overconfident: Do you put your money on it?' by Hoelzl and Rustichini (2005)

Marius Protte
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This study replicates and adapts the experiment of Hoelzl and Rustichini (2005), which examined overplacement, i.e., overconfidence in relative self-assessments, by analyzing individuals' voting preferences between a performance-based and a lottery-based bonus payment mechanism. The original study found underplacement - the majority of their sample apparently expected to perform worse than others - in difficult tasks with monetary incentives, contradicting the widely held assumption of a general human tendency toward overconfidence. This paper challenges the comparability of the two payment schemes, arguing that differences in outcome structures and non-monetary motives may have influenced participants' choices beyond misconfidence. In an online replication, a fixed-outcome distribution lottery mechanism with interdependent success probabilities and no variance in the number of winners - designed to better align with the performance-based payment scheme - is compared against the probabilistic-outcome distribution lottery used in the original study, which features an independent success probability and a variable number of winners. The results align more closely with traditional overplacement patterns than underplacement, as nearly three-fourths of participants prefer the performance-based option regardless of lottery design. Key predictors of voting behavior include expected performance, group performance estimations, and sample question outcomes, while factors such as social comparison tendencies and risk attitudes play no significant role. Self-reported voting rationales highlight the influence of normative beliefs, control preferences, and feedback signals beyond confidence. These results contribute to methodological discussions in overconfidence research by reassessing choice-based overconfidence measures and exploring alternative explanations for observed misplacement effects.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marius Protte. 2025-07-21. Explaining Apparently Inaccurate Self-assessments of Relative Performance: A Replication and Adaptation of 'Overconfident: Do you put your money on it?' by Hoelzl and Rustichini (2005). https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15568

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN↗