Choosing Complexity: Cognitive Ability, Overconfidence, and Task Choice

David Gill () and Zhongheng Qiao
Additional contact information
David Gill: Purdue University

No 18834, IZA Discussion Papers from IZA Network @ LISER

Abstract: Workers and organizations routinely choose the complexity of tasks that they undertake. We study how cognitive ability and overconfidence shape this choice of task complexity, both theoretically and experimentally. Consistent with our model, we find that more cognitively able individuals choose more complex tasks. Conditional on cognitive ability, we find that more overconfident individuals also choose more complex tasks. About 80% of subjects pick their payoff-maximizing task, and higher cognitive ability predicts more efficient choices of task complexity. But errors are strikingly one-sided: nearly all who fail to choose optimally pick tasks that are too complex. Our findings suggest that organizations should pair task menus and incentives for choosing more complex tasks with information and feedback that help workers assess their ability and probability of success. This preserves the benefits of self-selection while reducing costly overreach.

Keywords: cognitive ability; complexity; task choice; choice efficiency; overconfidence; experiment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C91 D03 D83 D91 J24 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-07
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://docs.iza.org/dp18834.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:iza:izadps:dp18834

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in IZA Discussion Papers from IZA Network @ LISER Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Mark Fallak ().