Confidence & Communication Flashcards
Confidence
A feeling of certainty
Can apply to beliefs, attitudes and knowledge
Communication
—Transfer of meaningful info- one to other
—verbal and nonverbal
—can influence decision making
Information exchange
-2 people in a communication exchange
—encoder: sends
—decoder: recieves
Information is exchanged - info given from one can persuade another to change attitudes
Applications
Confidence conveyed in social settings
In courtroom, police and jurors— make judgements on people based on confidence- more likely to believe a confident eye witness over non
—using their confidence as a proxy for knowledge- bc more knowledge a person has— easier to portray confidence
Eyewitness confidence
Confidence does not always correlate highly with accuracy- Bothwell
—can have confident person not very accurate vice versa
-have situations of overconfidence where confidence overshoots accuracy
—same for underconfidence
—Well calibrated people— as confident as they are accurate
—confidence and accuracy not always entangled with the same things
—can be influenced if another eyewitness has agreed
—Loftus cant always trust our memory— not always accurate
Persuasion studies in simulated two person juries
London et al.
Single behavioural difference between persuaders and persuadee is their expression of confidence
—plays huge role in persuasion
—persuasion doesnt depend on intelligence/ ability— but expression of confidence
—more confidence— more persuasion
How do we communicate confidence?
Confidence cue= “I am absolutely sure”— asserting degree of confidence
Verbal/numerical expressions= “99% sure”
Taxonomy of confidence cues— Wesson 2009
—expressions from top to bottom
— continuum different degrees of confidence
Impact of Confidence
—important because its a cue used to infer things about speakers credability and likeability
—makes an impression on people— what they think about your intelligence and skills
—the way you talk about your skills — plays a significant role— sometimes more than your actual skills
Paralinguistic Vocal Cues
Loud and fast speakers— ppl percieved as more confident- 30 yr old paper
—also more intelligent, trustworthy and credible
—hesitations on speech— make less persuasive than if confident
—paraverbal cues give decoder (reciever) how confident sender is in their answer
Why is confidence important?
—if we dont have info to use to make decision/judgement ab someone— turn to others/ prefer to — experts— more knowledge— seek advice on harder situation- esp those w more risk— people we deem more knowledgeable
—out judgement on correctness (validity) of answer- use verbal/non paralinguistic/verbal cues to determine how confident they are—when uncertain-tuen to other- their confidence affects urs
Confidence heuristics
Study- Pulford et al
Found first demonstration of confidence heuristic
—model suggested that people make decisions strategically — in social interactions
—predicted best outcome— may be based on mutual use of confidence heuristic
Relies on 2 main assumption
1-ppl should express degrees of confidence — in proportion to the certainty they have on beliefs
—- more certain— higher confidence i must express vice versa
2- reciepients should judge reliability of info communicated with confidence expressed
—more confidently it is expressed— more reliable it is judged
confidence heuristic contiued
Assumption— most confident individuals— most likely to be correct
applies in common interest situations— no conflicting interest— best outcome same for both ppl
—some people irrational— may not follow this pattern between confidence and accuracy
e.g. common interest situation - agree on restuarant for lunch— if both ppl choices— between pizza express/ bella italia—best outcome coincides — only works when two people have common interest— modulate interaction based on confidence level they are expressing
Previous research
Price/Stone— tested one segement of full confidence heuristic model— asked students to evaluate 2 fictional financial advisors
— judge likelihood that each of several stocks would increase in value
—advisors confidence influenced ppts perception of their knowledge— higher confidence— more knowledge
—partial evidence for confidence heuristic— only have first part— confidence— no proof of knowledge — confidence persuasiveness aspect
—flawed study— didnt use real people— trying to coordinate on best outcome
our research
—aim: test full confidence heuristic while considering individual differences
-authors tested 2 diff task types/ information channels
—3 related experiments
- — aim— manipulate confidence— see how people communicate it w eachother
does highest confidence persuade others?
any influences of personality variables- assertiveness/ gender
Main study
PPts working in pairs
—56 ppts- 28 pairs- equal men/women
—ppts had to determine which face from— 9 photos— looked most like suspect portrayed in an E-fit
—24 suspects to identify— half men/women
—8 fillers to disguise hypothesis
Police and suspect problem
—imagine you and your partners are police
— crim committed— two witnesses interviewed
—one interviewed by each — each witness created e-fit
—eye witness accuracy — efit can differ— diff views
— asked which suspect closes
Financial incentives:
—if both chose same face— of person who acc committed crime— 40p each
—if both chose same face— but innocent person— 20p each
—if choose two diff ppl— both get nothing
One player— saw efit similar to actual suspect— induce high confidence— high accuracy
Other player— saw efit— weaker resemblence- designed to throw off— induce low accuracy
Strong efit given to one player— 8 trials, other player— another 8
same efits used twice— once to player 1 then once to player 2– counterbalance
Result
Found players disgaree with eachother very rarely— less than 8 % of time
61%— number of times person with strong evidence persuaded other to agree
32%— person with weak evidence persuaded strong evidence to agree
Conc — some evidence of confidence heuristic— was found- no where as strong as predicted
Experiment 2
Ran same task/ procedure— but used shapes instead of people
—if a or B is closest to shape on the right
—size discrimination task— target size manipulated
—study provided further evidence for confidence heuristic— results more robust/ consistent with idea — person with better evidence— higher confidence— more likely to persuade other person
experiment 3
Manipulated— communication method
—involved computer mediated channel— same task— instead of talking— exchanging messages in front of computer
—researchers wanted to see if the communication channel affected results
—didnt make difference— same pattern of choices
—85% use of confidence heuristic— 85% agreement with most confident person
—suggesting answer first— strong evidence
—-found speaking first— no answer— less confidence
However,
Tenney et al.— found that not tru more confident more persuasive
what is important— calibration — after making an error— less confident witnesses— more credible than more confident ones
—ppl make inferences about source calibration —
—calibration affects credbaility— is even more important than displaying over confidence —- wheteher a person is seen as more credible or not— depends on whetehr the person demonstrates good calibration
Calibration — process of aligning confidence with actual ability
—confidence heuristic— can be effective in common interests
Consequences
Risk taking— can be influenced by confidence of other people— stock brokers — overconfident
A person with poor metacognitive ability— often says are right but end. up being wrong — soon lose trust of friends/ collegues
