Overconfident Workers Pick Tasks That Are Too Hard — and Almost Never Too Easy

Lab experiment shows cognitive ability and overconfidence both push people toward harder tasks. Errors are strikingly asymmetric: nearly all mistakes are overreach, not underreach.

You know that friend who always orders the hardest dish on the menu — the one with 47 ingredients and a French name — even though they'd enjoy the pasta more? This paper is about that instinct, formalized. Gill and Qiao build a model where workers choose between tasks of varying complexity, each with a different success-payment tradeoff, then test it in a controlled experiment. The core mechanism is straightforward: harder tasks pay more if you succeed but have lower success probabilities. Your optimal choice depends on knowing your own ability. The twist is what happens when self-knowledge is wrong. The committed claim: cognitive ability and overconfidence independently predict the choice of task complexity, and the errors are almost entirely one-directional. About 75% of subjects pick their payoff-maximizing task. But among the 25% who don't, the mistakes are overwhelmingly toward tasks that are too complex — not too simple. This asymmetry is the paper's sharpest finding. People don't randomly miscalibrate; they systematically overreach. The theoretical model is a two-period setup where agents first observe a noisy signal about their ability (inducing overconfidence or underconfidence), then choose a task from a menu of increasing complexity. The model predicts that conditional on true ability, overconfident agents select more complex tasks — and this is exactly what the experiment confirms. The architecture is classical experimental economics: incentivized choices, Raven's Progressive Matrices as the cognitive ability measure, and a clean identification strategy separating ability from overconfidence using the gap between actual and perceived performance. The ladder here is more conceptual than metric-driven. The paper sits in the tradition of Dunning-Kruger and the economics of self-selection (think Roy model, Lazear's sorting). The key advance over prior work is the joint identification of ability and overconfidence effects on endogenous task choice, rather than on performance alone. Previous lab studies (e.g., Bruhin, Fehr, and Schunk 2019; Hoffman and Burks 2020) examined how overconfidence affects performance or effort — this paper adds the task-choice margin, which matters because in real organizations, workers often select their own assignments. Integrity is solid for a lab experiment. The design cleanly separates ability from overconfidence, and the paper reports results for multiple task-menu configurations and robustness checks across 71 pages of appendices. The sample is a university subject pool — standard for the field, but the usual external-validity caveats apply. There's no pre-registration mentioned, and the multiple task-menu treatments raise the standard question of which comparisons were planned ex ante. The asymmetry result is compelling precisely because it's so lopsided — it would be hard to p-hack a 75/25 split with nearly all errors in one direction. The practical upshot is the punchline organizations should care about: if you let workers self-select into complex tasks, you'll get efficient sorting most of the time, but the failures will almost all be costly overreach. The paper's prescription — pair task menus with information and feedback about ability and success probability — is intuitive but now has clean experimental backing. Think of it as the case for calibration tools alongside autonomy. What's missing is the field. This is a lab experiment with university subjects choosing between abstract tasks. The obvious successor is a field study inside an actual organization — say, a consulting firm or software team — where workers choose project difficulty levels with real career stakes. The authors almost certainly know this is the next step; it's a dramatically harder study to run (access, IRB, firm cooperation), which is the honest reason it wasn't done here.