2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.04.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Examining underconfidence among high-performing students: A test of the false consensus hypothesis.

Abstract: People are inaccurate when predicting their performance on tests: Poor performers are often overconfident whereas high performers are slightly underconfident. This pattern is said to occur because low performers overestimate their own knowledge and underestimate others' knowledge, whereas high performers only overestimate others' knowledge by assuming it is similar to theirs-a false consensus effect. The current studies tested this false consensus hypothesis in a classroom setting. Across two studies spanning … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that low-performing students continue to inaccurately monitor their metacognition despite prior evidence to the contrary, thus failing to learn from previous test experiences. Future studies might explore whether providing students with more explicit feedback might influence their second-order judgments (e.g., Tirso et al 2019). For now, the finding that SOJs remained stable seems to suggest that students are steadfast in their prediction confidence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that low-performing students continue to inaccurately monitor their metacognition despite prior evidence to the contrary, thus failing to learn from previous test experiences. Future studies might explore whether providing students with more explicit feedback might influence their second-order judgments (e.g., Tirso et al 2019). For now, the finding that SOJs remained stable seems to suggest that students are steadfast in their prediction confidence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. We expected that exam predictions would remain high across tests during the semester and that this would be the case, particularly for the lowest-performing students, replicating prior work (Miller and Geraci 2011b;Tirso et al 2019). Of interest was what would happen for the second-order judgments (SOJs) for these students.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Good performers are known to have better metacognitive awareness compared to poor performers. At times, their metacognitive awareness might not be convincingly enough to judge them correct but, prompting them to lower their level of confidence (Tirso et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When this happens, they are said to have poor metacognitive monitoring, which is defined as the ability to accurately assess one's knowledge. The general pattern of results shows that the lowest performers on the task are generally overconfident in their performance compared to the highest performers on the task, who are sometimes underconfident in their performance (Al-Harthy et al, 2015;de Bruin et al, 2017;Dunning et al, 2003;Foster et al, 2017;Hacker et al, 2000Hacker et al, , 2008Händel & Fritzsche, 2016;Miller & Geraci, 2011;Saenz et al, 2017;Serra & DeMarree, 2016;Tirso & Geraci, 2020;Tirso et al, 2019). In terms of magnitude of these errors, the lowest performers are more poorly calibrated than the highest performers, as there is a larger difference between low performers' performance predictions and their actual performance than there is between high performers' performance predictions and their performance.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%