do not accomplish their goals, they are not content. Bandura (1986) predicts that people who had a higher self-confidence will become even more persistent to accomplish their goals. Whereas those who put themselves down and have doubts will lean more towards giving up quickly. Higher self-confident individuals will change their goals to cater more towards them. The lower self-confident individuals will "become discouraged and abandon their goal altogether." Kavanagh and Hausfeld (1986) reported that "induced moods" did not change the expectation of their confidence. However, Bandura (1988) has argued that individuals perceived confidence indicates capability rather than their "physiological arousal condition." It is in their mind, if people do not believe that they are capable of coping then they experience disruption which lowers their confidence about their performance. Research shows evidence that anxiety symptoms is not related to the "frightful cognition," but due to the individual's self-confidence to manage them. Confidence bias There are several debates concerning the overconfidence phenomenon and what its source is. It is suggested that the confidence bias can be explained by a noisy conversion of objective evidence (observation) into subjective estimates (judgment), whereas noise is defined as the mixing of memories during the storing (observing/learning) and retrieval process (remembering/judgment). The information-theoretic logic behind this explanation is very similar to the mechanism that can also lead to the conservatism bias, and holds that we mix true and false evidence during storage and retrieval of evidence to and from our memories. The confidence bias results because as judges we "look inside our own memory" (evaluate our confidence) and find evidence that is more extreme than when we retrieve evidence for our judgements (which are conservative due to mixing of extreme values during retrieval). This explanation is very simple and straightforward, but nevertheless sufficient mechanism to generate both, overconfidence (in situations where judges are very sure) and underconfidence (in cases when judges openly state to lack the required knowledge). Others have described evolutionary models which explain that "counterintuitively, overconfidence maximizes individual fitness and populations tend to become overconfident, as long as benefits from contested resources are sufficiently large compared with the cost of competition". See also Grandiose delusions Haughtiness Hubris Icarus complex Narcissism Self-serving bias Vanity References Emotions Narcissism Positive psychology eo:Fido fi:Luottamus