1. Cues to Confidence and Consistency Jacob Westfall Richard Petty David Dunning Leif Nelson

2. Precisely Right: Informational Precision and Increased Confidence Matt Wallaert Jake Westfall David Pizarro Leaf Van Boven

5. Our hypothesis Precision  Perceived accuracy  Confidence 4 studies

6. Study 1: Consumer opinions 143 undergrads viewed 30 product ratings: 10 whole number (“Average rating is 57”) 10 one decimal place (“Average rating is 57.5”) 10 two decimal places (“Average rating is 57.54”) For each product, construct an interval within which “the true average rating of all people who bought the product falls.”

7. Study 1: Results Linear effect: F 1,142 = 6.10, p =.015, η 2 =.041

8. Study 2 Affective forecasts Between subjects Self-generated estimates

9. Study 2: Affective forecasts “Imagine that you are a first year graduate student. After working hard all year and conducting several studies, your department says that your advisor is moving to another school and that they are no longer interested in keeping you on as a student. Consequently, you will need to leave grad school without an advanced degree and go out into the job market at the end of the semester. On a scale from 0 [0.0] (Extremely negative) to 100 [100.0] (Extremely positive) please predict how you would feel at the following times:” “Rounded” group“Precise” group Day 0: _x_ out of 100Day 0: _x.x_ out of 100.0 Day 1: _x_ out of 100Day 1: _x.x_ out of 100.0… Day 9: _x_ out of 100Day 9: _x.x_ out of 100.0

10. Study 2: Results Difference in ranges: F 1,109 = 14.06, p <.001, η 2 =.114 Difference in means: F 1,109 = 6.76, p =.011, η 2 =.058 Average min. = 5.5 Average min. = 5.4 Average max. = 43.1 Average max. = 30.0

11. Study 3: Weight estimation 1.300 grams vs. 0.3 kilograms ? 2.“How confident do you feel that your estimate is accurate?” 0 = Not at all confident, 10 = Completely confident

12. Study 3: Weight estimation

13. Study 3: Results Kilogram ratings vs. gram ratings F 1,17 = 36.84, p<.001, η 2 =.684 DV = Average confidence ratings (not average weight estimates)

14. Study 4: Betting on precision Obama Clinton

15. Study 4: Results Difference in bets: F 1,34 = 4.33, p =.044, η 2 =.113

16. Discussion: What have we learned? Domains 1.Consumer judgment 2.Affective forecasting 3.Perceptual judgments 4.Betting behavior Externally provided estimates Self-generated estimates

17. Discussion: What have we learned? Sources Conversational norms? Difficulty with asymmetric relationships? – “if A implies B, B must also imply A”

18. The end!