Overconfidence persists despite years of accurate, precise, public, and continuous feedback: Two studies of tournament chess players

Overconfidence is thought to be a fundamental cognitive bias, but it is typically studied in environments where people lack accurate information about their abilities. Tournament chess players receive objective, precise, and public feedback, so we conducted a preregistered survey experiment and replication to learn whether overconfidence persists in an environment that should diminish or eradicate it. Our combined sample comprised 3388 rated players aged 5–88 years, from 22 countries, with M=18.8 years of tournament experience. On average, participants asserted their ability was 89 Elo rating points higher than their observed ratings indicated—expecting to outscore an equally-rated opponent by 2:1. One year later, only 11.3% of overconfident players achieved their asserted ability rating. Low-rated players overestimated their skill the most and top-rated players were calibrated. These patterns emerged in every sociodemographic subgroup we considered. We conclude that overconfidence persists even in real-world information environments that should be inhospitable to it.