Based on data from German DAX-CEOs in this thesis it is argued, that in different fields of education individuals acquire different mind-sets which influence their proneness to overconfidence.
Using the framework of dual process reasoning it is proposed that education in quantitative fields, such as mathematics or physics, hampers overconfidence while individuals educated in qualitative fields, such as law or the humanities, become more prone to overconfidence.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this Paper
1.2 Course of Investigation
2 Concept of Overconfidence
2.1 Theoretical Concept
2.2 Managerial Overconfidence
2.3 Criticism
3 Sources of Overconfidence
3.1 Principal Sources
3.2 Influencing Factors
3.2.1 Age
3.2.2 Education
3.2.3 Gender
3.2.4 Cultural Background
3.2.5 Task Familiarity and Performance
3.2.6 Feedback
3.2.7 Importance of a Topic
3.2.8 Mental Condition
3.2.9 Situational Factors
4 Implications of Overconfidence
4.1 Better-Than-Average Effect
4.2 Implications for Finance
4.2.1 Implications for Security Trading
4.2.2 Implications for M&A
4.2.3 Implications for Corporate Investment
4.3 Implications for Entrepreneurship
4.4 Implications for Management
4.5 Implications for Economics
5 Motivation for my Research
5.1 Empirical Evidence
5.1.1 Data
5.1.2 Results
5.2 Experimental Evidence
5.2.1 Data
5.2.2 Results
5.3 Discussion
6 Dual Reasoning and Overconfidence
6.1 Concept of Dual Reasoning
6.2 Differences in Reasoning
6.2.1 Fixed Factors
6.2.2 Trainability
6.2.3 Manipulability
6.3 Reasoning Systems and Overconfidence
6.4 Differences in Training and Overconfidence
7 Experimental Approach
7.1 Hypothesis
7.2 Preliminary Considerations
7.3 Experimental Setup
7.4 Additional Testing
7.5 Interpretation of Results
8 Conclusion
8.1 Summary
8.2 Outlook
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this thesis is to investigate whether an individual's major field of study influences their proneness to overconfidence. By bridging the literature on cognitive biases with dual process theory, the research seeks to determine if quantitatively oriented education acts as a mitigating factor for overconfident decision-making compared to more qualitative educational backgrounds.
- Analysis of overconfidence as a cognitive bias in economic contexts.
- Examination of factors influencing overconfidence, including age, gender, and education.
- Application of dual process reasoning (System 1 vs. System 2) to explain individual differences in overconfidence.
- Empirical investigation of German DAX-company CEOs and their educational backgrounds.
- Proposed experimental designs to test the link between reasoning systems and overconfidence.
Excerpt from the book
1.1 Purpose of this Thesis
De Bondt and Thaler (1995) claim that “perhaps the most robust finding in the psychology of judgment is that people are overconfident”. In literature overconfidence has been blamed for economic bubbles and crises (Scheinkman and Xiong, 2003) as well as for international conflicts and wars (Johnson, 2004). Consequently, much research was conducted on the bias termed “overconfidence”, its roots and effects. These studies showed that overconfidence plays an important role in various fields like economics, finance, management or entrepreneurship. Understandably factors influencing an individual’s level of overconfidence have been of particular interest for researchers. In this context research has identified many factors, some more and some less amenable to influence. The question is therefore whether the factors found so far are conclusive or whether other factors of influence also exist.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate this very question and to argue in favor of an individual’s major field of study as a factor of influence not studied yet. I propose that the field in which an individual has been educated in the sense of whether it is rather quantitatively or rather qualitatively oriented influences a person’s mode of thought and there over influences her proneness to overconfidence. While education has already been shown to impact one’s level of overconfidence previous research focused on the length and profoundness of education. The thesis at hand, however, examines the connection between overconfidence and the field in which a person has been educated. The issues covered are therefore how education and mind set are related, why a differentiation between “quantitative” and “qualitative” education makes sense in this context, and how different mind-sets influence an individual’s proneness to overconfidence.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides the theoretical background of rational versus irrational behavior and sets the research purpose regarding how education influences overconfidence.
2 Concept of Overconfidence: Defines overconfidence within economic literature, distinguishing between manifestations like miscalibration, self-serving bias, and illusion of control.
3 Sources of Overconfidence: Explores cognitive and physiological origins of overconfidence and reviews factors such as age, gender, education, and task familiarity.
4 Implications of Overconfidence: Analyzes the consequences of overconfident behavior in professional domains including finance, entrepreneurship, and management.
5 Motivation for my Research: Presents empirical data on German CEOs and experimental evidence suggesting differences in overconfidence based on academic fields.
6 Dual Reasoning and Overconfidence: Introduces dual process reasoning (System 1 and System 2) and argues how different educational trainings influence their usage.
7 Experimental Approach: Outlines a methodology for testing the hypothesis that System 1 thinking fosters overconfidence while System 2 hampers it.
8 Conclusion: Summarizes the thesis findings and suggests future directions for researching the intersection of education and cognitive biases.
Keywords
Overconfidence, Dual Process Theory, Cognitive Bias, Managerial Decision Making, Behavioral Economics, System 1, System 2, Quantitative Education, Qualitative Education, Miscalibration, Heuristics, Rationality, CEO Performance, Cognitive Training, Decision Making Under Uncertainty
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
The thesis focuses on whether an individual's major field of study during higher education influences their level of overconfidence, specifically looking at the distinction between quantitative and qualitative educational backgrounds.
What are the key themes addressed in the work?
The key themes include the psychological roots of overconfidence, the role of dual process theory in reasoning, its impact on business and finance, and how educational training shapes individual cognitive systems.
What is the primary research question or goal?
The primary goal is to determine if education serves as an influencing factor on overconfidence by arguing that quantitative training promotes more analytical reasoning, thereby reducing overconfident biases.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The work utilizes a literature review, empirical analysis of data from German DAX-company CEOs, and a theoretical proposal for an experimental design based on dual process reasoning.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical framework of overconfidence, its manifestations in finance and management, empirical results showing variations among CEOs based on their university subjects, and the psychological mechanisms of System 1 and System 2 reasoning.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Overconfidence, Dual Process Theory, Behavioral Economics, Managerial Decision Making, Cognitive Biases, and Quantitative/Qualitative Education.
How does the author categorize different fields of study regarding their influence on reasoning?
The author categorizes disciplines like mathematics, natural sciences, and engineering as "quantitative," while law, humanities, and arts are labeled as "qualitative," suggesting the former encourages System 2 thinking while the latter may rely more on System 1.
Why are German CEOs used as a sample for this study?
German top managers are chosen because they represent a diverse educational mix—lawyers, engineers, natural scientists, and economists—allowing for a comparative analysis of how these specific backgrounds relate to overconfidence scores derived from press portrayal.
What is the "double danger" mentioned regarding managers?
The "double danger" refers to the fact that managers are often highly prone to overconfidence due to their professional environment, and simultaneously, their biased decisions can cause the most significant economic harm.
What does the author suggest about the "trainability" of reasoning systems?
The author argues that reasoning systems are not fixed; rather, formal logic and bias-inhibition training can enhance the use of System 2 thinking, potentially helping managers transition more effectively into roles requiring strategic rather than intuitive leadership.
- Citation du texte
- B.Sc. Maximilian Margolin (Auteur), 2012, Managerial Overconfidence and Education – Insights from Dual Process Theory, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/209231
