Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

High-status lobbyists are most likely to overrate their success


Overconfidence helps individuals reach higher status within social groups by making them seem more competent regardless of objective ability, so this bias may be especially prevalent among status-oriented members of elite communities. Based on this premise, we explore whether lobbyists in the USA misperceive their success. Using models that (1) control for legislative outcome when predicting self-assessed policy success and (2) compare self-assessed policy success on specific proposals against the average success reported by all lobbyists working on the same side of an issue, we identify systematic tendencies to overrate achievements. Lobbyists with higher incomes, who reside in Washington, DC, USA, have congressional experience and who engage in a broader range of activities are more likely to overrate their success. Public interest group lobbyists tend to underestimate success. We conclude that political elites are subject to the same biases as others when evaluating their performance, and these biases may be largely status-driven.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

The Heinz et al. data19 are available from the Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research at Our custom data are available in the Open Science Framework repository at

Code availability

Our custom analysis script is available in the Open Science Framework repository at


  1. Mayhew, D. R. Congress: The Electoral Connection, Vol. 26 (Yale Univ. Press, 1974).

  2. Davis, D. A. et al. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA 296, 1094–1102 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Falchikov, N. & Boud, D. Student self-assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 59, 395–430 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mabe, P. A. & West, S. G. Validity of self-evaluation of ability: a review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 280 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Finn, B. Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Mem. Cognit. 36, 813–821 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nevid, J. S., Cheney, B. & Thompson, C. ‘But I thought I knew that!’ Student confidence judgments on course examinations in introductory psychology. Teach. Psychol. 42, 330–334 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Weinstein, Y. & Roediger, H. L. Retrospective bias in test performance: providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it. Mem. Cognit. 38, 366–376 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A. & Petersen, N. B. G. The role of evidence in politics: motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 49, 1117–1140 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A. & Kennedy, J. A. A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 718 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cruz, C. & Schneider, C. J. Foreign aid and undeserved credit claiming. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 61, 396–408 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hill, M. D., Kelly, G. W., Lockhart, G. B. & Van Ness, R. A. Determinants and effects of corporate lobbying. Financ. Manage. 42, 931–957 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim, J.-H. Corporate lobbying revisited. Bus. Polit. 10, 1–23 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernhagen, P., Dür, A. & Marshall, D. Measuring lobbying success spatially. Interest Groups Advoc. 3, 202–218 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McKay, A. Buying policy? The effects of lobbyists’ resources on their policy success. Polit. Res. Quart. 65, 908–923 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Baumgartner, F. R. & Leech, B. L. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science (Princeton Univ. Press, 1998).

  16. Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L. & Kimball, D. C. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why (Univ. Chicago Press, 2009).

  17. Baron, D. P. Competitive lobbying and supermajorities in a majority-rule institution. Scand. J. Econ. 108, 607–642 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Egdell, J. M. & Thomson, K. J. The influence of UK NGOs on the Common Agricultural Policy. J. Common Mark. Stud. 37, 121–131 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heinz, J. P., Laumann, E. O., Nelson, R. L. & Salisbury, R. H. The Hollow Core. Private Interests in the National Policy Making (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

  20. Dunning, D., Heath, C. & Suls, J. M. Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 5, 69–106 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C. & Epstein, W. The illusion of knowing: failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Mem. Cognit. 10, 597–602 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moore, D. A. & Healy, P. J. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 115, 502 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Alicke, M. & Govorun, O. The better-than-average effect. Self Soc. Judgm. 1, 85–106 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Haun, D. E., Zeringue, A., Leach, A. & Foley, A. Assessing the competence of specimen-processing personnel. Lab. Med. 31, 633–637 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ehrlinger, J. & Dunning, D. How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 5 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Camerer, C. & Lovallo, D. Overconfidence and excess entry: an experimental approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 89, 306–318 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Neale, M. A. & Bazerman, M. H. The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 28, 34–49 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dunning, D. The Dunning–Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 247–296 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Leech, B. L. in Maisel, S. L. & Berry, J. M. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

  30. Alicke, M. Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 1621 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dunning, D., Leuenberger, A. & Sherman, D. A. A new look at motivated inference: are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 58 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kunda, Z. Motivated inference: self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 636 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller, D. T. & Ross, M. Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: fact or fiction? Psychol. Bull. 82, 213–225 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Russo, J. E. & Schoemaker, P. J. Managing overconfidence. Sloan Manag. Rev. 33, 7 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1121 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A. & Holzberg, A. D. Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1082 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ross, L., Mark, R. & Hubbard, M. Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32, 880 (1975).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kennedy, J. A., Anderson, C. & Moore, D. A. When overconfidence is revealed to others: testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 122, 266–279 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Josephs, R. A., Sellers, J. G., Newman, M. L. & Mehta, P. H. The mismatch effect: when testosterone and status are at odds. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 999 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B. & Wojnowicz, M. T. Overdoing gender: a test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. Am. J. Sociol. 118, 980–1022 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. LaPira, T. M. & Thomas, H. F. Revolving Door Lobbying: Public Service, Private Influence, and the Unequal Representation of Interests (Univ. Press of Kansas, 2017).

  42. Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. & Eagly, A. H. Diminishing returns: the effects of income on the content of stereotypes of wage earners. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 1538–1545 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lazear, E. P. Overconfidence and Occupational Choice NBER Working Papers 21921 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016).

  44. Ross, M. & Sicoly, F. Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 322 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Williamson, W. J. & Johnston, J. Understanding, evaluating and improving nursing productivity. Nurs. Manage. 19, 49–55 (1988).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Parker, S. K. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 835 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dür, A. Measuring interest group influence in the EU: a note on methodology. Eur. Union Polit. 9, 559–576 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mahoney, C. Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. J. Public Policy 27, 35–56 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Klüver, H. Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).

  50. Burstein, P. American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress: What the Public Wants and What It Gets (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  51. Walker, J. L. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements (Univ. Michigan Press, 1991).

  52. Jordan, G. & Maloney, W. A. Manipulating membership: supply-side influences on group size. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 28, 389–409 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This project has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 682785). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



B.A.L., A.M.M. and J.R. designed the study and conducted the analysis. B.A.L. and A.M.M. drafted the initial manuscript. B.A.L., A.M.M. and J.R. revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin A. Lyons.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary handling editor: Aisha Bradshaw

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Distribution of relative perceived success.

Values are frequencies of relative perceived success scores.

Extended Data Fig. 2

Lobbyists’ Over- and Underconfidence, by Activities and Characteristics.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Legislative Outcome, by Lobbyist Activities and Characteristics.

Preferred outcome coefficients (realized/not realized) are derived from a multivariate probit regression model including both models. The linear term model is an ordered probit model.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lyons, B.A., McKay, A.M. & Reifler, J. High-status lobbyists are most likely to overrate their success. Nat Hum Behav 4, 153–159 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing