Hard-Easy Effect and It’s Cognitive Underpinnings

hard-easy effect

The Hard–Easy Effect represents a cognitive bias where individuals tend to overestimate their chances of success in tasks they perceive as difficult, and underestimate in those they find easy. It illustrates how subjective perceptions of task difficulty warp one’s confidence levels, distorting the accuracy of one’s predictions regarding outcomes. It shares similarities with other cognitive biases such as the Dunning-Kruger effect and the overconfidence bias.

The hard-easy effect is an aspect of social comparison theory, which was developed by Leon Festinger in 1954. According to Festinger, people are motivated to appropriately evaluate their own beliefs and talents, and social comparison theory explains how they do so by comparing themselves to others.

Sarah Lichtenstein and Baruch Fischhoff, psychologists with a focus on behavioral psychology, first investigated the hard-easy effect in 1977. In an investigation into the accuracy of subjective probability judgments, they discovered that, while people are moderately well calibrated, their probability judgments are prone to systematic biases, with overconfidence being the most common.

Within the Expected Utility Framework, decisions are guided by the potential benefits weighed against the probabilities of different outcomes. However, the Hard–Easy Effect can skew this calculus, as individuals deviate from optimal decision-making by allowing their subjective confidence to influence the perceived utility of various actions.

Perception of Task Difficulty

Hard-perceived tasks are those which individuals often regard as challenging due to their complexity, novelty, or the high level of skill required. These tasks tend to provoke a sense of uncertainty or a fear of failure, as the individual may doubt their ability to successfully complete the task. This feeling is not just subjective; it can be identified through a series of characteristics:

  • Complexity: The task may involve multiple steps or require the integration of various pieces of information.
  • Required Skill Level: Individuals may perceive a task as hard if it requires skills they lack or need to develop.
  • Familiarity: Unfamiliar tasks are more likely to be viewed as difficult.
  • Outcome Uncertainty: If the results of the task are unpredictable, the task is often perceived as more difficult.

These factors combined can increase the chances of an individual experiencing the perception of task difficulty, which directly influences their approach and attitude towards the task at hand. Studies on this phenomenon underline the difficulty of the task and how it affects one’s judgment and expectation of success.

Characterizing Easy-Perceived Tasks

In contrast, easy-perceived tasks are those that individuals feel confident in completing without excessive effort. These tasks are often routine, familiar, and require less cognitive effort, leading to fast and efficient completion. Characteristics of tasks perceived as easy include:

  • Simplicity: Easily comprehensible steps and a lack of complexity.
  • Skill Match: The individual’s skills and the task’s requirements align well.
  • Familiarity: A well-known task breeds confidence in the outcome.
  • Predictable Outcome: A clear expectation of success based on previous experience.

Recognition and understanding of an easy-perceived task often assume that the individual will experience less stress and higher efficacy. This can result in a stronger sense of control and satisfaction upon the task’s completion. Examination of these tasks reflects a link between perceived loss-gain asymmetry and perceived task difficulty, illustrating how task perception can skew judgment.

Hard-easy Effect Impact on Probability Assessment

Individuals tend to display overconfidence when facing tasks of varying difficulty. This overconfidence is especially prevalent under conditions of uncertainty. For example, when tasks are subjectively perceived as difficult, there’s a tendency for individuals to overestimate their probability of success.

Estimating the probability of success can be significantly affected by the hard–easy effect. In tasks deemed easy, there’s an inclination to underestimate the chances of success, while harder tasks see an inflated estimation of success probabilities. These estimations sometimes adhere to the subjective biases rather than objective reality, highlighting the dissonance between perceived and actual difficulty.

Behavioral Patterns and Targets

The hard-easy effect bias, also known as the discriminability effect or the difficulty effect, operates on the assumption that individuals’ confidence levels adjust inversely to the objective difficulty of a target task. When faced with simple tasks, they exhibit low confidence, whereas complex tasks provoke overconfidence.

This dynamic is especially relevant in tasks with a target-based foundation where the perceived ease or difficulty influences the attention and effort allocated. One study illustrates the upward adjustment for easy targets and the downward adjustment for hard targets in terms of attentional responses.

The bias significantly shapes behavior and decision-making processes, particularly in high-stakes environments. In the realm of behavioral patterns, individuals may avoid making decisions or change their approach based on their assessment of a task’s difficulty, not necessarily its actual parameters.

For instance, during target detection tasks, where the decision-making process is vital, one’s preconceived notions about a target’s difficulty can skew their actual performance and lead to outcomes that reflect bias rather than objective reasoning. This has implications for how tasks should be structured and approached to mitigate the effects of the bias on decision-making.

Utility Functions and Decision Processes

Utility functions play a crucial role in economic and psychological theories of decision-making, frequently underpinning models that assess behavior in risky situations.

Utility functions can be characterized as S-Shaped, where they reflect risk aversion for gains and risk-seeking behavior for losses, correlating with the concept of loss aversion. This form of utility function generally suggests that individuals are more sensitive to relative changes when dealing with losses as opposed to gains.

In contrast, asymmetrically tailed utility functions suggest that people have a disproportionate preference towards outcomes considered to be extremely positive or negative, which may lead to biases in decision-making. The tail of the utility function — whether it is the left (negative) or right (positive) side — can have a steep slope, reflecting a strong aversion to severe losses or an intense preference for substantial gains.

Utility in Decision Making

When individuals make decisions, utility functions serve as the mathematical representation of their preferences. These functions can influence decisions by quantifying the perceived value of outcomes. For example, certain decision-making models interpret the utility function as the cumulative distribution of value, which can then be used as a framework for understanding choices under uncertainty.

In practical terms, businesses and managers often rely on utility functions to guide their decision-making, taking into account how different choices might align with their objectives and risk profiles. The consideration of utility can lead to more mindful decisions that better reflect the decision-maker’s underlying values and priorities.


Some studies, including Brenner et al. (1996), Justil et al. (1997), and Keren (1991), have cast doubt on the existence of the impact.

Peter Juslin, in a 1993 paper, argued that “(1) when the objects of judgement are selected randomly from a natural environment, people are well-calibrated; (2) when more and less difficult item samples are created by selecting items with more and less familiar contents, i.e. in a way that does not affect the validity of the cues, no hard-easy effect is observed, and people are well-calibrated both for hard and easy item samples.”

Juslin, Anders Winman, and Henrik Olsson of Uppsala University asserted in 2000 that the hard-easy effect had previously “been interpreted with insufficient attention to important methodological problems”. In their own study, after they adjusted for two methodological issues, the hard-easy effect was “almost eliminated”.

The authors claimed that “the hard-easy effect has been interpreted with insufficient attention to the scale-end effects, the linear dependency, and the regression effects in data, and that the continued adherence to the idea of a ‘cognitive overconfidence bias’ is mediated by selective attention to particular data sets” . One particular point they highlighted was that the hard-easy effect is nearly completely removed “when there is control for scale-end effects and linear dependency”.

  1. Anand P (1993). Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-823303-9
  2. Bordley, R., Licalzi, M., Tibiletti, L. (2017). A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias. In: Bilgin, M., Danis, H., Demir, E., Can, U. (eds) Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 5. Springer, Cham.
  3. Briggs, R. A. Normative Theories of Rational Choice: Expected Utility, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.)
  4. Juslin, Peter (November 2007). An explanation of the hard-easy effect in studies of realism of confidence in one’s general knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 5 (1): 55–71. doi: 10.1080/09541449308406514
  5. Juslin, Peter; Winman, Anders; Olsson, Henrik (2000). Naive Empiricism and Dogmatism in Confidence Research: A Critical Examination of the Hard-Easy Effect. Psychological Review. 107 (2): 384–396. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.384
  6. Lichtenstein S,, Fischhoff, B. Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , volume 20 , p. 159 – 183 Posted: 1977
  7. Morgan H.N. and Rotthoff, K.W. (2014), The Harder the Task, the Higher the Score: Findings of a Difficulty Bias. Economic Inquiry, 52: 1014-1026
  8. Suantak, L., Bolger, F., & Ferrell, W. R. (1996). The hard–easy effect in subjective probability calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(2), 201–221.
  9. William M. Goldstein; Robin M. Hogarth (13 June 1997). Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-48334-6