HPC · Science Deep Dive 5 April 2026 · revised 2026-04-05

The Overconfidence Effect: Why Experts Are Wrong More Often Than They Think.

The gap between how certain experts feel and how often they are right is not a personality flaw. It is a measurable, neurally encoded failure mode that appears in every high-stakes professional domain tested, and the overconfidence bias science shows it can be reduced. Here is what the science actually says, and what to do with it.

Section: Decisions
Reading time: 22 min read
Sources: 54 · reviewed

01The 30-Point Gap

Experts at 98% Confidence Are Right 68% of the Time

Ask yourself a factual question: something you feel confident about. A date, a number, a prediction about next quarter's results. Now assign a probability: how certain are you? If you said 98%, Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, and Phillips have a number for you. Across more than 15,000 probability judgments aggregated from over twenty studies, people who stated 98% confidence were correct 68% of the time.[8] That is not a rounding error. That is a 30-percentage-point calibration gap: the systematic distance between how certain humans feel and how often they are actually right.[7]

The finding did not stay in the laboratory. Svenson's canonical 1981 study asked American drivers to rate their own safety: 93% placed themselves above the median.[9] A 2023 replication by Koppel and Andersson found 91% doing the same thing, forty-two years later.[51] The mathematics are unyielding (half of all drivers are, by definition, below median), but the overconfidence bias does not answer to mathematics. It answers to something deeper in the architecture of human judgment.

That matters because this is not a story about amateurs misjudging trivia questions. The overconfidence effect scales with expertise, stakes, and consequence. Tetlock spent twenty years tracking 284 political and economic experts (professors, government advisors, think-tank analysts) as they made 28,000 predictions about world events. The result: they barely outperformed random chance.[4] The experts who appeared most frequently in media, the ones who spoke with the greatest certainty, performed worst of all.[5]

01 · The history

The scale of the problem becomes clear only when you see it across domains. In medicine, physicians claiming complete certainty about a diagnosis were wrong approximately 40% of the time in autopsy-comparison studies (a figure that applies to certainty-claiming diagnoses specifically, not to clinical judgment generally, since calibration improves in domains with rapid diagnostic feedback).[22] In finance, CFOs asked to provide 90% confidence intervals for the S&P 500's annual return captured the true value only 36.3% of the time.[54] In national security, a 2025 study of approximately 1,900 NATO-cleared officials found they were correct about 58% of the time on forecasts they rated at 90% confidence, a 32-point gap that mirrors the laboratory findings from four decades earlier.[32]

These are not isolated failures. Grežo's 2021 meta-analysis of 34 studies confirmed that overconfidence exerts a statistically significant effect on financial decision-making across investment, trading, and innovation contexts.[28] Arvanitis and colleagues found the same pattern in a meta-analysis of 62 entrepreneurship studies: all three subtypes of overconfidence stimulate market entry but impair post-founding performance.[29]

The pattern is robust enough to name. Overconfidence bias science (the study of why humans systematically overestimate their knowledge, overrate their relative standing, and set confidence intervals too narrow) is one of the most replicated research programmes in behavioural science.[1][6] The question is no longer whether the effect is real. The question is why the brain generates it, and what can be done about it.

02The Mechanism

Three Types of Overconfidence and the Neural Architecture That Produces Them

For forty years, the overconfidence literature produced apparently contradictory results. Some studies found people wildly overestimated their abilities. Others found they underestimated themselves on easy tasks. The confusion persisted until Moore and Healy published their definitive 2008 taxonomy in Psychological Review, which demonstrated that researchers had been conflating three mechanistically distinct phenomena under a single label.[6]

The first is overestimation, believing your absolute performance is better than it actually is. The second is overplacement, believing you rank higher relative to others than you do, the engine behind Svenson's 93% above-median drivers.[9] The third, and most dangerous, is overprecision: the excessive certainty that your beliefs are correct, expressed as confidence intervals that are far too narrow.[6] Moore and Healy showed that on easy tasks, people underestimate their absolute performance but overplace themselves against peers. On hard tasks, the pattern reverses. The three types respond differently to task difficulty, which is why decades of research that treated them as one thing generated decades of confusion.

The critical insight is that overprecision is the most persistent of the three forms. It appears regardless of task difficulty, population, or domain.[6][23] Sanchez and Dunning's 2023 interdisciplinary review confirmed that experts are uniformly overprecise regardless of expertise level; expert status does not reduce and may actually exacerbate excessive certainty.[23]

The reward architecture of overconfidence: the brain treats certainty as a reward signal in the striatum, while the vmPFC and rACC selectively amplify confirming evidence, leaving the lateral PFC to encode disconfirmation weakly, hardwiring a systematic gap between felt certainty and actual accuracy.

Diagram · HPC

The neural evidence explains why. Molenberghs and colleagues conducted the largest fMRI study on confidence and accuracy ever published (308 participants, exceptional for neuroimaging) and found that the brain processes certainty and correctness through structurally separate systems.[15] Higher confidence activated the striatum and hippocampus, regions associated with reward processing. Higher metacognitive accuracy (actually knowing when you are right and when you are wrong) correlated with decreased activation in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex.[15]

That matters because the implication is stark: the feeling of being certain and the reality of being correct are generated by opposing neural systems. Confidence feels like a reward. The brain treats it as one. Fleming and Dolan's review of the neural basis of metacognitive ability confirmed the dissociation: the lateral prefrontal cortex governs retrospective accuracy judgments, while medial structures govern the prospective feeling of knowing.[16]

The architecture gets worse under the influence of asymmetric belief updating. Sharot, Korn, and Dolan demonstrated that participants selectively updated their beliefs in response to better-than-expected information but failed to update appropriately after worse-than-expected news.[17] The ventromedial prefrontal cortex and rostral anterior cingulate cortex show heightened activation for confirming evidence, while the lateral PFC codes negative prediction errors weakly.[17][18] Approximately 80% of people demonstrate this optimism bias.[18]

03Evidence

The Five Strongest Studies on the Overconfidence Effect

01The claim

The single load-bearing finding

The hero study finds 28,000+ predictions.

Not all evidence carries equal weight. A twenty-year prospective longitudinal study tells you something different from a single-session lab experiment with thirty undergraduates. The five studies ranked below represent the strongest available evidence on overconfidence, chosen for design quality, measurement precision, causal clarity, and replication value. Together, they establish that the calibration gap is not an artefact of how researchers ask questions. It is a stable property of how human minds process uncertainty. The ranking uses a 100-point rubric across six criteria: Design (quality

Pooled estimate

28,000+

02How we measured

Grading the calibration studies

Studies scored on design, sample, rigour, causality, replication.

For overconfidence science, ecological validity is decisive: laboratory calibration gaps mean little unless they replicate in real expert populations making real consequential forecasts over years.

Rubric weights

Design/35

Sample/20

Rigour/15

Causality/15

Replication/15

03The spread

Heterogeneity across 5 studies

Effect sizes across the ranked studies.

The hierarchy reveals a pattern that is easy to miss when reading individual studies: the evidence gets stronger, not weaker, as you move from the laboratory to the field. Tetlock's experts were not performing contrived tasks under artificial conditions. They were making real predictions about real events (elections, economic shifts, military conflicts) in their areas of professional specialisation.[4] The TNSR 2025 study extended this to approximately 1,900 NATO-cleared national security officials making 60,000-plus assessments about geopolitical events.[32] The gap held. Fischhoff's earlier

Spread

91 → 70 /100

Range of point estimates across ranked studies.

04What does not hold

Negative knowledge

What the evidence base does not support.

One important nuance deserves emphasis. Gigerenzer's ecological rationality framework challenges the blanket framing of heuristics as error-prone. Simple heuristics, he argues, can outperform optimisation under specific ecological conditions.[3] This is not a refutation of overconfidence research. It is a boundary condition. Weather forecasters approach calibration because they operate in environments with rapid, unambiguous feedback.[8] The problem is not that heuristics always fail. The problem is that most high-stakes professional environments lack the feedback s

Consumer dose

The studies

5 trials. One pooled answer.

Below: the anchor study in full; then the forest plot at scale; then the supporting trials in ranked order.

01Anchor

: Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?

Tetlock Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction 2005 20-yr Longitudinal · Expert Population · Pre-Registered Outcomes

Philip Tetlock spent two decades collecting predictions from 284 political and economic experts (university professors, government advisors, think-tank analysts). He verified every prediction against actual outcomes. **The experts barely outperformed random chance, and the most famous, most confiden

Rubric breakdown

Design27/35

Sample17/20

Rigour14/15

Causality13/15

Replication10/10

Citations10/10

Total 91/100

The strongest studies, ranked by methodological weight.

Each scored 0–100 against a six-criterion rubric, tagged by design and year; the anchor leads.

Anchor (Rank 1) Supporting

Rank Authors & title Journal · Year Finding Score

Lichtenstein, Fischhoff & Phillips

: Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art to 1980

· 1982

When subjects stated 98% confidence, accuracy was 68%, a 30-point calibration gap replicated across populations, domains, and decades. Calibration only approached accuracy in rapidly-feedback domains like experienced weather forecasting.

85/100

Moore & Healy

: The Trouble with Overconfidence

· 2008

Three distinct forms of overconfidence (overestimation, overplacement, and overprecision) respond differently to task difficulty. Overprecision is the most persistent, present regardless of context.

79/100

Molenberghs, Trautwein & Böckler

: Neural correlates of metacognitive ability and of feeling confident

· 2016

Higher confidence correlated with striatal/hippocampal (reward) activation; higher metacognitive accuracy correlated with decreased anterior medial prefrontal activation. The feeling of being right and the reality of being right recruit opposing neural systems.

74/100

Mellers, Ungar & Baron

: Psychological Strategies for Winning a Geopolitical Forecasting Tournament

· 2014

The CHAMPS KNOW probabilistic reasoning training produced reliable accuracy gains (6–11% Brier score improvement) sustained across multiple tournament years. Comparison class use was the single most powerful component.

70/100

04Stakes

The Cost of Misplaced Certainty Across Four Domains

Overconfidence is not an abstract laboratory finding. It has a measurable cost in money, health, security, and democratic function, and the price scales with the confidence of the decision-maker.

01 System 01 · System 01

Financial

Consistent with an overconfidence account, male investors traded 45% more than female investors and earned risk-adjusted returns 1.4 percentage points lower per year (overconfidence inferred from gender-linked trading patterns).[24] Overconfident CEOs were 65% more likely to make acquisitions, and markets punished them: −90 basis points at announcement versus −12 for rational CEOs.[27] The most active traders in Odean's study earned 11.4% annually versus a market average of 16.4%.[25]

45%

In practice

portfolio churn, impulsive trades, chronic underperformance vs. index

02 System 02 · System 02

Medical

Physicians claiming complete certainty were wrong approximately 40% of the time in autopsy-comparison studies (a figure specific to certainty-claiming diagnoses, not clinical judgment generally).[22] In Senegal, overconfident healthcare providers were 26% less likely to correctly manage patients and performed 18% fewer diagnostic actions.[37] High-confidence residents spent 12% less time per case with no accuracy advantage. Certainty compressed effort, not error.[38]

40%

In practice

premature diagnostic closure, skipped differentials, unexamined confidence

System 03 · System 03

Strategic / Geopolitical

Overconfident leaders systematically overestimate capabilities and underestimate adversaries, a pattern documented across the First World War, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.[30] The 2025 TNSR study confirmed the pattern in active national security professionals: the calibration gap at 90% confidence was 32 points.[32] The same bias that made junior analysts overconfident in cold reading tasks operates at the level of strategic military planning.

In practice

intelligence failures, planning overruns, escalation through misread signals

04 System 04 · System 04

Information / Democratic

Three in four Americans overestimate their news discernment by 22 percentile points, and this overconfidence, not actual news literacy, predicts willingness to share false political content.[33] Low health-literacy individuals with high confidence showed 62% tobacco use versus 29% in the high-literacy group.[34] The Dunning-Kruger effect pattern means the people most confident in their media literacy are often the least equipped to exercise it.

In practice

uncritical content sharing, resistance to correction, false sense of expertise

05Protocol

A 4-Step Calibration Protocol for High-Stakes Decision-Making

Every step does the same thing at a mechanistic level: it reintroduces the feedback signal that professional environments typically remove. Overconfidence is the predictable output of a brain designed for rapid-feedback environments operating in a slow-feedback world.

The protocol, as a sequence.

Ongoing → Pre-decision → Estimation → Training

01 Step 01 · Ongoing

Prediction Tracking

Maintain a simple prediction log: write down what you expect, your confidence as a percentage, and your reasoning, then track actual outcomes.

Why

Overconfidence persists because feedback is absent in most professional domains. The only populations who achieve naturalistic calibration operate in rapid-feedback environments.[8] Tracking artificially closes the loop. Chang et al. found comparison class use combined with tracking was the most powerful component of the CHAMPS KNOW protocol.[40]

Maintain a simple prediction log: write down what you expect, your confidence as

Common mistake

Tracking in vague terms ("I thought this would go well") defeats the purpose. Confidence must be quantified as a percentage before the outcome is known. Minimum 20–30 tracked predictions before calibration patterns become visible.[45]

02 Step 02 · Pre-decision

Premortem

Before finalising any major plan, assume it has already failed completely. Write down every plausible reason it failed.

Why

Veinott, Klein, and Wiggins found the premortem technique produced a 25-point reduction in plan confidence, outperforming standard critique, pro/con listing, and cons-only generation in a five-condition controlled experiment.[43]

Before finalising any major plan, assume it has already failed completely. Write

Common mistake

Running the premortem after commitment, when social pressure makes generated concerns feel disloyal rather than informative.

03 Step 03 · Estimation

Reference Class Forecasting

When estimating costs, timelines, or success rates, find a reference class of comparable past projects and anchor to the empirical median before adjusting.

Why

Flyvbjerg validated reference class forecasting on 258 large infrastructure projects across 20 nations; it systematically reduces the planning fallacy.[44] Kahneman and Lovallo showed the "inside view" is the primary driver of planning overconfidence; the corrective is the outside view.[47]

When estimating costs, timelines, or success rates, find a

Common mistake

Treating your current project as so unique that no reference class applies. The literature suggests this is almost always the inside view in disguise.

04 Step 04 · Training

Structured Debiasing

Complete a structured probabilistic reasoning training covering base rates, Bayesian updating, comparison classes, disconfirming evidence, and aggregated views.

Why

Morewedge's single-session debiasing training produced at least 31.94% bias reduction in the game condition, with effects persisting at two months.[41] Sellier et al. found trained participants were 19% less likely to choose the inferior solution on a real business case (the corrected figure per a published corrigendum that revised the original 29% estimate downward).[42]

Complete a structured probabilistic reasoning traini

Common mistake

Believing domain expertise eliminates the need for calibration training. Sanchez and Dunning confirm experts are uniformly overprecise regardless of domain.[23] A 2025 meta-analysis of 54 RCTs (N = 10,941) found small but significant debiasing effects (Hedges' g = 0.26).[49]

Operational logic

The 2025 TNSR study offers a direct test of the protocol principle. A two-minute debiasing intervention, far shorter than the full CHAMPS KNOW curriculum, produced measurable improvement in the calibration of approximately 1,900 national security officials.[32] Kelly's 2024 study with intelligence analysts confirmed that calibration training significantly improved interval estimation, though it paradoxically worsened underconfidence on binary tasks, a reminder that the effects are task-specific and that signal engineering requires precision, not just effort.[48]

The simplicity of the protocol is the point. Larrick's review of the debiasing literature found that "consider the opposite" (systematically generating reasons your conclusion could be wrong) is the single most consistently effective cognitive debiasing technique across studies.[46] Overconfidence does not require sophisticated cognitive therapy to reduce. It requires structured contact with the possibility of being wrong, something most professional cultures actively discourage.

---

06Verdict

The verdict.

Bottom line

The brain will not stop generating certainty. The only question is whether you build the systems that test it before you act on it.

The reframing this evidence demands is simple but uncomfortable. Every professional who has ever said "I'm 90% sure" about a strategic judgment was probably operating with something closer to 58% accuracy, with no internal mechanism for detecting the difference.[32] That is not a failure of character. It is a design specification. The brain was built for environments where confidence was tested by consequences within hours, not years. The modern professional world removed the consequences and left the confidence.

The whole argument, one axis

Stated Certainty vs Actual Accuracy

01Claim

The gap is systematic

The 30-point calibration gap is not noise, bad luck, or poor education. It is a stable architectural feature of human cognition, present in every population and domain measured across fifty years of research, from trivia questions to military intelligence.

02Consequence

Certainty suppresses correction

Overconfidence does not just produce wrong answers. It produces wrong answers that feel right and disable the error-detection systems that would catch them. Physicians order fewer tests. Investors check fewer sources. Planners skip the reference class.

03Lever

Calibration is trainable

The IARPA forecasting tournaments, single-session debiasing interventions, and field-transfer studies converge: structured probabilistic reasoning training produces measurable, durable, and transferable accuracy gains. The correction is external scaffolding, not willpower.

07Bibliography

54 sources · ~7h est. corpus read · 54 visible

Meta · 1 Review · 6 Cohort · 1 Journal · 41 Book · 5

Type

Sort

01 Journal

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D1974

Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases

Science1124–1131

doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
02 Journal

Kahneman, D2011

*Thinking, fast and slow*. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Thinking, fast and slow
03 Book

Gigerenzer, G2007

*Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious*. Viking Press.

Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious
04 Book

Tetlock, P. E2005

*Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?* Princeton University Press.

Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?
05 Book

Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D2015

*Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction*. Crown Publishers.

Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction
06 Review

Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J2008

The trouble with overconfidence

Psychological Review502–517

doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502
07 Journal

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S1977

Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance552–564

doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552
08 Book

Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D1982

Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), *Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases* (pp. 306–334). Cambridge University Press

Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases306–334

doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809477.019
09 Journal

Svenson, O1981

Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? *Acta Psychologica*, *47*(2), 143–148

Acta Psychologica6918(81) · 143–148

doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6
10 Journal

Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F2002

The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth

Cognitive Science521–562

doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
11 Journal

Johnson, D. D. P., & Fowler, J. H2011

The evolution of overconfidence

Nature317–320

doi: 10.1038/nature10384
12 Journal

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D1999

Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1121–1134

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
13 Journal

Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J2008

Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes98–121

doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002
14 Journal

Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M2020

The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact

Intelligence

doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449
15 Journal

Molenberghs, P., Trautwein, F. M., Böckler, A., Singer, T., & Kanske, P2016

Neural correlates of metacognitive ability and of feeling confident: A large-scale fMRI study

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience1942–1951

doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw093
16 Journal

Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J2012

The neural basis of metacognitive ability

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences1338–1349

doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0417
17 Journal

Sharot, T., Korn, C. W., & Dolan, R. J2011

How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality

Nature Neuroscience1475–1479

doi: 10.1038/nn.2949
18 Journal

Sharot, T2011

The optimism bias

Current Biology

doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030
19 Journal

Yamada, M., Uddin, L. Q., Takahashi, H., et al2013

Superiority illusion arises from resting-state brain networks modulated by dopamine

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences4363–4367

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221681110
20 Journal

Palminteri, S., & Lebreton, M2022

The computational roots of positivity and confirmation biases in reinforcement learning

Trends in Cognitive Sciences607–621

doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.04.005
21 Journal

Oskamp, S1965

Overconfidence in case-study judgments

Journal of Consulting Psychology261–265

doi: 10.1037/h0022125
22 Journal

Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L2008

Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine

American Journal of Medicine

doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001
23 Review

Sanchez, C., & Dunning, D2023

Are experts overconfident? An interdisciplinary review

Research in Organizational Behavior
24 Journal

Barber, B. M., & Odean, T2001

Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment

Quarterly Journal of Economics261–292

doi: 10.1162/003355301556400
25 Journal

Odean, T1998

Volume, volatility, price, and profit when all traders are above average

Journal of Finance1887–1934

doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00078
26 Journal

Malmendier, U., & Tate, G2005

CEO overconfidence and corporate investment

Journal of Finance2661–2700

doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00813.x
27 Journal

Malmendier, U., & Tate, G2008

Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction

Journal of Financial Economics20–43

doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.07.002
28 Review

Grežo, M2021

Overconfidence and financial decision-making: A meta-analysis

Review of Behavioral Finance276–296

doi: 10.1108/RBF-01-2020-0020
29 Journal

Arvanitis, A., Kallimaras, M., Forbes, S. L., & Kafetsios, K2022

Overconfidence and entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis

Journal of Business Venturing

doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.100192
30 Book

Johnson, D. D. P2004

*Overconfidence and war: The havoc and glory of positive illusions*. Harvard University Press

Overconfidence and war: The havoc and glory of positive illusions

doi: 10.4159/9780674039162
31 Journal

Potts, M2007

Overconfidence in warfare

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine63–64

doi: 10.1258/jrsm.100.2.63-a
32 Review

Texas National Security Review / Good Judgment Project2025

The world is more uncertain than you think: Assessing and combating overconfidence among 2,000 national security officials

Texas National Security Review
33 Journal

Lyons, B. A., Montgomery, J. M., Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J2021

Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

doi: 10.1073/pnas.2019527118
34 Journal

Canady, B. E., & Larzo, M2023

Overconfidence in managing health concerns: The Dunning-Kruger effect and health literacy

Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings460–468

doi: 10.1007/s10880-022-09895-4
35 Journal

Li, Y., Ren, X., Yang, T., & He, Z2020

Tunnel construction workers' cognitive biases and unsafe behaviors

Advances in Civil Engineering

doi: 10.1155/2020/8873113
36 Cohort

Murphy, S. C., Barlow, F. K., & von Hippel, W2018

A longitudinal test of three theories of overconfidence

Social Psychological and Personality Science353–361

doi: 10.1177/1948550617699252
37 Journal

Kovacs, R. J., Lagarde, M., & Cairns, J2020

Overconfident health workers provide lower quality healthcare

Journal of Economic Psychology

doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.102213
38 Journal

Al-Maghrabi, M., et al2024

Overconfidence, time-on-task, and medical errors: Is there a relationship? *Advances in Medical Education and Practice*, *15*, 133–140

Advances in Medical Education and Practice133–140

doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S442689
39 Journal

Mellers, B., Ungar, L., Baron, J., et al. & Tetlock, P. E2014

Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament

Psychological Science1106–1115

doi: 10.1177/0956797614524255
40 Journal

Chang, W., Chen, E., Mellers, B., & Tetlock, P. E2016

Developing expert political judgment: The impact of training and practice on judgmental accuracy in geopolitical forecasting tournaments

Judgment and Decision Making509–526
41 Journal

Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S2015

Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences129–140

doi: 10.1177/2372732215600886
42 Journal

Sellier, A.-L., Scopelliti, I., & Morewedge, C. K2019

Debiasing training improves decision making in the field

Psychological Science1371–1379

doi: 10.1177/0956797619861429
43 Journal

Veinott, E., Klein, G. A., & Wiggins, S2010

Evaluating the effectiveness of the PreMortem technique on plan confidence

Proceedings of ISCRAM 2010
44 Journal

Flyvbjerg, B2006

From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right

Project Management Journal5–15

doi: 10.1177/875697280603700302
45 Journal

Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B1980

Training for calibration

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance5073(80) · 149–171

doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(80)90052-5
46 Review

Larrick, R. P2004

Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), *Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making* (pp. 316–337). Blackwell.

Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making316–337
47 Journal

Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D1993

Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking

Management Science17–31

doi: 10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17
48 Journal

Kelly, C2024

The effect of calibration training on the calibration of intelligence analysts' judgments

Applied Cognitive Psychology

doi: 10.1002/acp.4236
49 Meta

[Authors TBC, PMID 40858766]2025

Systematic review and meta-analysis of educational approaches to reduce cognitive biases among students

Nature Human Behaviour1562-025

doi: 10.1038/s41562-025-02253-y
50 Journal

[Authors TBC]2025

Debiasing training reduces confirmation bias in national risk analysts

Scientific Reports1598-025

doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-28794-w
51 Journal

Koppel, L., & Andersson, D2023

We are all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers: Successful replication and extension of Svenson (1981)

Meta-Psychology

doi: 10.15626/MP.2022.2932
52 Journal

Nedelec, J. L., Dunkel, C. S., & van der Linden, D2025

Heritability of metacognitive judgement of intelligence: A twin study on the Dunning-Kruger effect

Intelligence

doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2025.101xxx
53 Journal

Okazaki, S., et al2024

The psychological mechanisms of the better-than-average effect in the moral and competence domains

Frontiers in Psychology

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1367568
54 Review

Berthet, V2022

The impact of cognitive biases on professionals' decision-making: A review of four occupational areas

Frontiers in Psychology

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439

The Overconfidence Effect: Why Experts Are Wrong More Often Than They Think.

Experts at 98% Confidence Are Right 68% of the Time

Three Types of Overconfidence and the Neural Architecture That Produces Them

The Five Strongest Studies on the Overconfidence Effect

The hero study finds 28,000+ predictions.