The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments
Abstract
Generally, self-assessment of accuracy in the cognitive domain produces overconfidence, whereas self-assessment of visual perceptual judgments results in underconfidence. Despite contrary empirical evidence, in models attempting to explain those phenomena, individual differences have often been disregarded. The authors report on 2 studies in which that shortcoming was addressed. In Experiment 1, participants (N= 520) completed a large number of cognitive-ability tests. Results indicated that individual differences provide a meaningful source of overconfidence and that a metacognitive trait might mediate that effect. In further analysis, there was only a relatively small correlation between test accuracy and confidence bias. In Experiment 2 (N = 107 participants), both perceptual and cognitive ability tests were included, along with measures of personality. Results again indicated the presence of a confidence factor that transcended the nature of the testing vehicle. Furthermore, a small relationship was found between that factor and some self-reported personality measures. Thus, personality traits and cognitive ability appeared to play only a small role in determining the accuracy of self-assessment. Collectively, the present results suggest that there are multiple causes of miscalibration, which current models of over- and underconfidence fail to encompass.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121
Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.4.506 · Cited by 1,506
Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: the role of error in judgment processes
Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.3.519 · Cited by 644
Harvey, N. (1997) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(97)01014-0 · Cited by 239
Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability
BRIER, G. W. (1950) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3c0001:vofeit%3e2.0.co;2 · cited 2×
“Investigators often determine the accuracy of confidence ratings by using a decomposition of the mean probability score (commonly known as the Brier Score; Brier, 1950). That procedure yields a calibration and resolution score, via the so-called Murphy partition (Murphy, 1973). Calibration, resolution, and Brier score…”
Method
Cited by
Decision‐making competence: External validation through an individual‐differences approach
Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2005) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.481 · Cited by 437
Confidence: A better predictor of academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety?
Stankov, L., Lee, J., Luo, W., & Hogan, D. J. (2012) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.013 · Cited by 291
Self-citationOverconfidence and the Big Five
Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2003.09.010 · Cited by 263
Confidence and cognitive test performance.
Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2008) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012546 · Cited by 133
Self-citationA meta-analysis and systematic review of reactivity to judgements of learning
Double, K. S., Birney, D. P., & Walker, S. A. (2018) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2017.1404111 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D.
- Venue
- The Journal of General Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 257-299
- ISSN
- 0022-1309 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-0888
- OpenAlex
- W2158368498
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00221300209602099
- The paper
- Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments. The Journal of General Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300209602099
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.