Influencing Confidence: Testing Ways to Increase or Decrease Confidence in Knowledge

ABSTRACT This paper examines approaches for influencing people's confidence in their knowledge without influencing knowledge. Three studies examined the relative effectiveness of training and false feedback approaches. Participants chose which of two IKEA products they thought was more expensive and indicated their confidence in that judgment for 50 product pairs. In Study 1, participants took part in one of five conditions designed to manipulate their confidence: false feedback‐increasing, false feedback‐decreasing, training‐increasing, training‐decreasing, or control. For false feedback, we told participants they did very well or poorly on the task. For training‐increasing, we gave participants information about IKEA pricing that appeared useful but was difficult to implement. For training‐decreasing, we developed an automated calibration training technique that provided personalized calibration feedback consisting of a calibration diagram accompanied by textual summary information and advice. Neither the false feedback nor training approach increased confidence on 50 subsequent knowledge‐confidence judgments. However, both manipulations designed to reduce confidence were successful, with a substantially larger effect in the calibration training condition. In Study 2, we adapted the calibration training approach to provide false feedback indicating participants were either underconfident or overconfident. Both the original calibration training pproach and the new false feedback approach indicating overconfidence reduced confidence, and the false feedback approach indicating underconfidence increased confidence. Study 3 tested the effectiveness of this new false feedback approach on an on‐line rather than student sample, finding essentially the same results as those in Study 2. Throughout the three studies, the effects of the manipulations extended to overconfidence, overall calibration, and the Brier score. The results provide a potential tool for research and practice regarding confidence in knowledge.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70048
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Influencing Confidence: Testing Ways to Increase or Decrease Confidence in Knowledge

Michelle Bongard, Andrew M. Parker, Eric R. Stone, Rowan Kemmerly et al.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Memory Processes and Influences
article

Influencing Confidence: Testing Ways to Increase or Decrease Confidence in Knowledge

Michelle Bongard, Andrew M. Parker, Eric R. Stone, Rowan Kemmerly, Annie H. Somerville, Brooke Nixon
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines approaches for influencing people's confidence in their knowledge without influencing knowledge. Three studies examined the relative effectiveness of training and false feedback approaches. Participants chose which of two IKEA products they thought was more expensive and indicated their confidence in that judgment for 50 product pairs. In Study 1, participants took part in one of five conditions designed to manipulate their confidence: false feedback‐increasing, false feedback‐decreasing, training‐increasing, training‐decreasing, or control. For false feedback, we told participants they did very well or poorly on the task. For training‐increasing, we gave participants information about IKEA pricing that appeared useful but was difficult to implement. For training‐decreasing, we developed an automated calibration training technique that provided personalized calibration feedback consisting of a calibration diagram accompanied by textual summary information and advice. Neither the false feedback nor training approach increased confidence on 50 subsequent knowledge‐confidence judgments. However, both manipulations designed to reduce confidence were successful, with a substantially larger effect in the calibration training condition. In Study 2, we adapted the calibration training approach to provide false feedback indicating participants were either underconfident or overconfident. Both the original calibration training pproach and the new false feedback approach indicating overconfidence reduced confidence, and the false feedback approach indicating underconfidence increased confidence. Study 3 tested the effectiveness of this new false feedback approach on an on‐line rather than student sample, finding essentially the same results as those in Study 2. Throughout the three studies, the effects of the manipulations extended to overconfidence, overall calibration, and the Brier score. The results provide a potential tool for research and practice regarding confidence in knowledge.

Journal of Behavioral Decision MakingVol. 38(5)
RAND Corporation (US), Wake Forest University (US)
National Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Memory Processes and Influences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.