How Overconfidence in Initial Choices and Underconfidence Under Criticism Modulate Change of Mind in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strikingly conflicting behaviors: they can appear steadfastly overconfident in their initial answers whilst at the same time being prone to excessive doubt when challenged. To investigate this apparent paradox, we developed a novel experimental paradigm, exploiting the unique ability to obtain confidence estimates from LLMs without creating memory of their initial judgments – something impossible in human participants. We show that LLMs – Gemma 3, GPT4o and o1-preview – exhibit a pronounced choice-supportive bias that reinforces and boosts their estimate of confidence in their answer, resulting in a marked resistance to change their mind. We further demonstrate that LLMs markedly overweight inconsistent compared to consistent advice, in a fashion that deviates qualitatively from normative Bayesian updating. Finally, we demonstrate that these two mechanisms – a drive to maintain consistency with prior commitments and hypersensitivity to contradictory feedback – parsimoniously capture LLM behavior in a different domain. Together, these findings furnish a mechanistic account of LLM confidence that explains both their stubbornness and excessive sensitivity to criticism.