Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent☆
Section snippets
(Absent) Self-insight among the incompetent
Why are people typically so convinced that they are more capable than they, in fact, are? In recent years, an active and emerging literature has grown to explain errors in self-assessment. One strategy for understanding the sources of error in self-assessment is to identify those individuals who make the most mistaken self-judgments. By examining how these error-prone individuals differ from their more accurate peers, one can identify sources of error in general.
Adopting this approach, Kruger
Goals of the present research
The primary aim of this manuscript is to advance an understanding of why the incompetent, in particular, tend to lack self-insight. Although a growing body of evidence has provided support for the claim that incompetence hinders self-insight (e.g., Dunning et al., 2003, Haun et al., 2000, Hodges et al., 2001), this analysis has been subject to criticism. These critiques argue that the self-assessment errors observed by Kruger and Dunning can be largely reduced to statistical or methodological
Metacognitive error or statistical artifact?
Two alternative accounts have been published to explain the pattern of over- and underestimation of performance observed by Kruger and Dunning (1999). Central to these critiques is the notion that top and bottom performers actually do not differ in their ability to evaluate the quality of their own performances. Instead, it is argued, people of all skill levels have equal difficulty estimating the quality of their performance—and it is this shared difficulty, coupled with statistical or
The present investigations
The following studies were designed to address the above critiques and, more generally, provide a better understanding of the relationship between level of skill and accuracy in self-assessment. We have organized the studies described in this manuscript in three sections, each with a separate aim.
Section 1: Correcting for reliability in self-assessments for real world tasks
All too often, social psychological research remains in the laboratory and we are left to infer that the same phenomenon routinely occur in the real world. For this reason, the discipline is often open to the criticism that what we find is limited to particular contrived laboratory situations or to particular demographics (e.g., Mintz et al., 2006, Sears, 1986). Thus, those few opportunities to measure social psychological phenomenon in the real world are particularly valuable. Real world
Section 2: Incentives for accuracy
The studies comprising Section 2 were designed, in part, to address another aspect of ecological validity. One could argue that participants are not properly motivated to offer accurate self-assessment. People just want to think good things about themselves while denying bad things—a tendency that has been documented quite strongly across several decades of psychological research (Baumeister and Newman, 1994, Dunning, 2001, Kunda, 1990). Beyond this motive, there is the motive to impress the
Section 3: Sources of inaccuracy in performance estimates
In this final section, we turn attention to the psychological mechanisms behind poor performers’ inability to recognize the deficient nature of their own performance relative to others and top performers to identify the exceptional nature of their own. When poor performers thought they were outperforming a majority of their peers, why were they so mistaken? When top performers failed to recognize how superior their performance was relative to others, why did they fail to recognize this fact?
General discussion
As Bertrand Russell so sagely noted in the quotation that opens this manuscript, the confidence people hold is often not matched by their actual achievement. Understanding why confidence and competence so rarely match has been an enduring interest in cognitive, social, personality, organizational, and clinical psychology (for reviews, see Dunning, 2005, Dunning et al., 2004, Lichtenstein et al., 1982).
In this manuscript, we examined the relationship between self-insight and level of competence.
Concluding remarks
Taken together, these findings reaffirm the notion that poor performers show little insight into the depth of their deficiencies relative to their peers. They tend to think they are doing just fine relative to their peers when, in fact, they are at the bottom of the performance distribution. By now, this phenomenon has been demonstrated even for everyday tasks, about which individuals have likely received substantial feedback regarding their level of knowledge and skill. College students have,
References (69)
- et al.
What we really know about our abilities and our knowledge
Personality and Individual Differences
(2002) - et al.
Two methods of reducing overconfidence
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1987) - et al.
Medical student self-assessment of performance on an obstetrics and gynecology clerkship
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
(2003) - et al.
Self-rated driving performance among elderly drivers referred for driving evaluation
Accident: Analysis and Prevention
(2005) Facing uncertainty in the game of bridge: A calibration study
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1987)- et al.
Confidence in, and self-rating of, driving ability among older drivers
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(1998) Confidence judgment accuracy as a predictor of test performance
Journal of Research in Personality
(1979)- et al.
Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1989) - et al.
Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions
(1991) Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1985)
The better-than-average effect
Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback and justification
Journal of Accounting Research
Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies, and incentives
The effects of monetary incentives on effort and decision performance: The role of cognitive characteristics
The Accounting Review
A self-presentational view of social phenomena
Psychological Bulletin
Self-regulation of cognitive inference and decision processes
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Theories of intelligence and achievement across the junior high school transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention
Child Development
Structural equations with latent variables
Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments
Social Cognition
Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: How perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor production framework
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
It takes one to know one: Interpersonal sensitivity is related to accurate assessments of others’ interpersonal sensitivity
Emotion
Expertise in problem-solving
Not can but will college teaching be improved?
New Directions for Higher Education
On the motives underlying social cognition
Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself
Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Why people fail to recognize their own competence
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development
A social–cognitive approach to motivation and personality
Psychological Review
How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis
Review of Educational Research
Cited by (0)
- ☆
We thank Alba Cabral, Leah Doane, Alex Emmot, Donny Thometz, Kevin van Aelst, and Nathalie Vizueta for assisting in the collection of data. We also thank members of the Dunning laboratory and, in particular, Nicholas Epley, for many helpful suggestions. This research was supported financially by National Institute of Mental Health Grant RO1 56072, awarded to Dunning.