Article

Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: How perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons

Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 02/2006; 90(1):60-77. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.60
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT People are inaccurate judges of how their abilities compare to others'. J. Kruger and D. Dunning (1999, 2002) argued that unskilled performers in particular lack metacognitive insight about their relative performance and disproportionately account for better-than-average effects. The unskilled overestimate their actual percentile of performance, whereas skilled performers more accurately predict theirs. However, not all tasks show this bias. In a series of 12 tasks across 3 studies, the authors show that on moderately difficult tasks, best and worst performers differ very little in accuracy, and on more difficult tasks, best performers are less accurate than worst performers in their judgments. This pattern suggests that judges at all skill levels are subject to similar degrees of error. The authors propose that a noise-plus-bias model of judgment is sufficient to explain the relation between skill level and accuracy of judgments of relative standing.

1 Follower
 · 
207 Views
    • "In addition, Burson, Larrick, and Klayman (2006) demonstrated that task difficulty significantly restrains the accuracy of metacognitive judgments for both skilled (good performers) and unskilled students (poor performers). However, the results of Burson et al.'s (2006) study as well as the results of a study conducted by Hacker, Bol, and Bahbahani (2008) indicated that unskilled students are more likely to overestimate their performance than skilled students (for more details regarding the " unskilled-unaware hypothesis " , see Kruger & Dunning, 2002). It should, however, be mentioned that students base their judgments on subjective perceptions of task difficulty rather than on objective difficulty of the tasks. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inaccurate judgments of task difficulty and invested mental effort may negatively affect how accurate students monitor their own performance. When students are not able to accurately monitor their own performance, they cannot control their learning effectively (e.g., allocate adequate mental effort and study time). Although students' judgments of task difficulty and invested mental effort are closely related to their study behaviors, it is still an open question how the accuracy of these judgments can be improved in learning from problem solving. The present study focused on the impact of three types of instructional support on the accuracy of students' judgments of difficulty and invested mental effort in relation to their performance while learning genetics in a computer-based environment. Sixty-seven university students with different prior knowledge received either incomplete worked-out examples, completion problems, or conventional problems. Results indicated that lower prior knowledge students performed better with completion problems, while higher prior knowledge students performed better with conventional problems. Incomplete worked-out examples resulted in an overestimation of performance, that is, an illusion of understanding, whereas completion and conventional problems showed neither over-nor underestimation. The findings suggest that completion problems can be used to avoid students' misjudgments of their competencies.
    Contemporary Educational Psychology 01/2015; 41. DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.01.001 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The final analysis sought to ascertain that the obtained pattern of findings was not specific to the particular measure of overconfidence used, namely, a numerical difference between self-and listener-based ratings expressed as a proportion on a 9-point ordinal scale. In line with previous psychological research on selfassessment (e.g., Burson et al., 2006; Kruger & Dunning, 1999), rated accent and comprehensibility values were first rank-ordered and then expressed as percentile scores by subtracting listener-rated performance from speakers' own estimates to derive a percentile-based measure of overconfidence. The resulting overconfidence scores matched closely the original measure of overconfidence for both accent, r(132) = .98, "
    Bilingualism 01/2015; DOI:10.1017/S1366728914000832 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "nts with high scores will . Therefore , they will appear to self - enhance more than the students with high scores will . Only for truly difficult tests—when the majority of partici - pants score low—will most participants appear to underesti - mate their position , with those who score high now making larger errors than those who score low ( cf . Burson et al . , 2006 ) ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: How people assess their social environments plays a central role in how they evaluate their life circumstances. Using a large probabilistic national sample, we investigated how accurately people estimate characteristics of the general population. For most characteristics, people seemed to underestimate the quality of others' lives and showed apparent self-enhancement, but for some characteristics, they seemed to overestimate the quality of others' lives and showed apparent self-depreciation. In addition, people who were worse off appeared to enhance their social position more than those who were better off. We demonstrated that these effects can be explained by a simple social-sampling model. According to the model, people infer how others are doing by sampling from their own immediate social environments. Interplay of these sampling processes and the specific structure of social environments leads to the apparent biases. The model predicts the empirical results better than alternative accounts and highlights the importance of considering environmental structure when studying human cognition.
    Psychological Science 10/2012; 23(12). DOI:10.1177/0956797612445313 · 4.43 Impact Factor
Show more