| dc.description.abstract | The overconfidence effect is a pervasive bias that has been shown to obstruct decisional quality and lead to harmful organizational outcomes. This widespread phenomenon has been observed across an expansive array of professional settings and has become a multidisciplinary topic of inquiry. Despite its prevalence, the overconfidence effect has not previously been extensively studied by human resource development (HRD) scholars. This study aimed to examine the overconfidence effect within an HRD lens by developing and validating a robust construct of expertise as expressed through the dimensions of domain-specific knowledge, experience, and adaptivity.
This multidimensional construct was used to explore the relationships between overconfidence and expertise, specifically within the context of human resource management (HRM) professionals. Additionally, the mediating and/or moderating effects of individual differences (i.e., personality traits, decision-making styles, and demographic characteristics) on these relationships were considered. Three theoretical resources anchored in decision-making research guided the study: the theory of bounded rationality, the biases and heuristics program (which refers to a collection of cognate research), and cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST).
An online survey was designed and administered to gather data from the research population of interest. The sample size consisted of 414 HRM practitioners from the United States. Descriptive statistics, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), mediation analysis, and moderation analysis were the statistical techniques employed in this study. The results of these analyses validated the constructs of expertise and overconfidence. While the hypothesized relationships between (a) expertise and overconfidence and (b) expertise and individual differences were supported, the (c) relationships between individual differences and overconfidence, as well as the (d) mediating and (e) moderating effects of individual differences were not supported. The theoretical, research, and practical significance of these findings are discussed in detail, and suggestions for a future research agenda are proposed. | en |
