{"id":2076,"slug":"pena-marin-2019-precision-backfires-when-wrong","title":"Pena-Marin et al. 2019 — precise estimates BACKFIRE when shown wrong","kind":"reference","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["precision-credibility-tradeoff"],"reference_body":"**Claim:** Pena-Marin et al. (2019, *Journal of Consumer Psychology* 29(4)) found that when an estimate proves incorrect, an **IMPRECISE estimate yields higher source trustworthiness and consumer loyalty than a PRECISE one** — even when the imprecise estimate was objectively further off.\n\n**Source:** Pena-Marin, Adaval, Burson 2019, *Journal of Consumer Psychology*. Single-source.\n\n**Confidence:** Single-source (no exact replication located).\n\n**Why this matters for Candid:** This is the core precision-vs-honesty tension: false precision BUYS short-term credibility but CREATES long-term liability if reality diverges. Because no defensible benchmark for \"digital-minus-ads\" spend exists (sister brief [[research-brief-smb-widget-spend-benchmarks-june-2026]]), any hard number the widget emits is precision the reality will diverge from. **A defined, anchored tier is the honest and durable choice — and costs nothing in source trust per [[van-der-bles-2020-pnas-uncertainty-numbers-safe]].**","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[],"incoming":[{"slug":"research-brief-smb-widget-presenting-tiers-june-2026","title":"Research brief: SMB widget presentation layer — tiered results without overclaiming (June 2026)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"anti-pattern-single-percentage","title":"Anti-pattern — single hard percentage or dollar figure","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"}]},"created_at":"2026-06-23T19:16:03.431Z","updated_at":"2026-06-23T19:16:03.431Z"}