THE EFFECTS OF ARGUMENTS ON REALISM IN CONFIDENCE JUDGMENTS

In this study we analyzed the effects of arguments on confidence ratin gs of answers to general knowledge questions. In two experiments subje cts answered general knowledge questions and rated their confidence in the selected answers. Before each confidence rating the subjects were given a prepared argument(s) for and/or against the chosen answer. Th e four experimental conditions, each contrasted with a within-subject control condition, varied with respect to the type of arguments given to the subjects (for or against the chosen answer, with or without a f urther argument against the first argument). In general, arguments ten ded to result in improved calibration but in an increased overconfiden ce. However, these trends were only significant for the increase in ov erconfidence in one of the experimental conditions. Experiment 2, usin g a within-subject design, compared self-generated arguments, given ar guments, and no arguments against the chosen answer alternative with r espect to their influence on the subjects' confidence ratings. The res ults showed no difference in the realism of subjects' confidence ratin gs between the three conditions although subjects rated the given argu ments as stronger in comparison with the arguments they had generated themselves. Our results suggest that arguments, whether given a to the subjects or subject generated, have no clear influence on the realism of subjects' confidence ratings.