We’re Swayed by Confidence More than Expertise
“For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are more often influenced by the things that ‘seem’ than by those that ‘are.’”
-16th-century Italian politician Niccolo Machiavelli
It’s something we come across regularly: presentation trumps content. Often what matters is not what we know, or what we have done, but rather how we spin it. It’s why cover letters are so important, and why the peripheral route to persuasion – one of advertising’s biggest weapons – works.
Now, Don Moore of Carnegie Mellon University demonstrated yet another way that we are heavily influenced by delivery — We tend to seek advice from experts who exhibit the most confidence – even when we know they haven’t been particularly accurate in the past.
In his experiment, Don had volunteers guess the weight of people in photographs, and paid them for their correct answers. But before each guess, the volunteers were asked to choose one of four advice-givers (also volunteers) from whom to buy advice. Each advice-giver submitted their weight guess in percentage form, with some advisers spreading out their advice over multiple weight ranges. So, one advisor might have said that there was a 70% chance that the person’s weight was 170-179 pounds, a 15% chance that it was 160-169, and a 15% chance that it was 180-189. A more confident advisor, however, would have put all his eggs in one basket and said there was a 100% chance that the weight was within the 170-179 range.
Now here’s the really important part: in each round, before they chose their adviser, volunteers got to see each adviser’s percentage spread, but not the associated weight ranges. (See this really handy chart for more on the set-up.)
What did Moore find? Volunteers were more likely to buy advice from confident advisers (such as the 100% adviser from above) than those who spread out their percentages. What’s more, this tendency led advisors to make their advice more and more precise in subsequent rounds – but not more accurate.
These findings are troublesome. Because though confidence and accuracy sometimes go hand-in-hand, they don’t necessarily do so. And when we want confident advisors, some will exaggerate to give us what we want. Maybe this is why so many pundits on TV for example exaggerate their certainty?
Good!
I’m confident you are correct! LOL
I don’t know about others, but I think I’d pick advisor A–leaves room for error, but not outrageously off like advisor B.
Although, I’m more interested in the experimental set-up. In rounds n>1, did the players receive accuracy data for each advisor? i.e. did the players know that advisor D was wrong for round 1 (as well as the results for the other advisors)?
I find it really hard to believe that people would continue to stick with advisor D if he had significantly worse accuracy… For instance, in the linked chart, if the correct weight for that round was 170 lbs, would people still stick with advisor D (guessed 180-189 with 100% confidence) despite the fact he was off by 10 pounds?
It may also explain why televangelists, fanatics and zealots can be so persuasive and influential.
PERSONALLY I PREFER AN ADVISE WHICH ASSIGNS
A PROBABILITY + A MARGIN ON EACH SIDE.
This was one of my rumblings of how the world worked. It pretty much explains everything about pop music idols: it doesn’t matter how good you are as a composer or singer, just that you do it with a great deal of conviction.
Not too surprising, I guess. Thus North Carolina chartered its State motto in 1893: esse quam videri (“to be, rather than to seem”).
Powerful results but hoping these have been demonstrated through other experiments as well. The one mentioned above could have a much more basic explanation, which is that volunteers found the answers of Advisor D to be much easier to understand. In other words, it’s not Advisor D’s “confidence” but rather the ability to understand his/her response that leads to volunteers’ preference for it.
Kahneman and Tversky’s Nobel Prize winning research has shown, among other things, that people are not especially good at making sense of statistical information and often settle for rules of thumb that simplify the complexity…often to our detriment. In the experiment shown above, it may not be clear to many people what it means when an advisor has percentages displayed across six different ranges. But it’s obvious what 100% in a single range means.
Given this, I’d really like to see a replication of the study above, which pits the confidence hypothesis against the one about simplicity.
Cheers. Josh
Is there a chance 2 c u before u leave 2 Boston? (4 research advise).
It’s disheartening and enlightening to discover a world of psychological power subtly influencing my own decisions that separate me from my money. My father gave me the best definition of work I’ve ever heard: “Separating people from their hard earned money takes a great deal of effort. That’s why it’s called ‘work’”. It is humbling and embarrassing to know that with the years of psychological education, training, and experience that I am just now realizing how I have been set up as a consumer. It is ingrained in me – not by force or choice, but by something much more subtle: social acceptance. And for me, a need for others to like me makes this social acceptance a strong and transparent force that keeps me shackled to the temporary joys and smiles of purchases targeted to make my life that much better – if they are to be believed.
How irrational of me. Thank goodness I’m learning.
This reminds me of a quote from Bertrand Russell:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
I guess that means we’re more likely to believe fools and fanatics.
I work as a professional behavior consultant for problem dogs.
This concept of confidence being more convincing than expertise might explain why otherwise quite intelligent people are so frequently mislead by low-quality dog trainers, some of whom have little to no qualification, who I think of as dog training “quacks”.
Canine behavior AND canine behavior advice, like medical or financial advice, involves creating and calculating probabilities– except for euthanasia, few specific behavioral outcomes are certain!
However, I notice the quack-trainers present “confidence” by dismissing the reality of uncertain outcomes & by guaranteeing results. By explaining (honestly) that outcomes are not certain, I am perceived as less confident, and therefore less credible.
Definitely something to think about: is this related to the idea that the human brain opts for the least cognitively-demanding choice? If one expert sees the picture as more complicated, won’t that just mean more thinking for us? The expert who sees things as black or white “keeps it simple”!
Неплохой блог, вполне достойный из того что есть по этой тематике.
Бе-е-е((( ну и мазня. По-другому назвать нельзя. Ушол в себя от такого занудства((((
Отличный материал, просто слов нет. Беру себе на заметку.
Абсолютно вас поддерживаю, мы с вами одинаково мыслим.
Замечательно! На самом деле просто здорово изложена тема
Просто супер! Отлично! Будь собой.Дургие роли уже заняты
Хочется сказать спасибо за такой интересный пост! Сначала не вкурил немного, но прочитал снова и очень оценил. Буду теперь вас читать почаще!
Подбор текстов хороший удачный, помещу сайт в закладки.
Чего и следовало ожидать, афтар весело опубликовал!
порно бeз смс