Why people overestimate their bullshit detection abilities: Interplay of cognitive factors, self-esteem, and dark traits

Abstract

The main aim of this paper was to examine overconfidence in the domain of bullshit detection and the contributing factors that explain why some people have the blind spot about their own incompetence. To verify whether people's lack of metacognitive awareness of their bullshit detection abilities is the result of self-enhancement motivation, we exposed one group of participants to a self-esteem threat scenario (by providing them with negative feedback on their cognitive abilities, i.e. intelligence) and compared it with two control groups (no feedback and positive feedback). The sample consisted of 596 adult Slovaks (47.1 % of women) aged 18 to 70 (M = 43.92, SD = 14.11). However, our manipulation had an effect only on overplacement. Bullshit detection predicted both overestimation and overplacement. Overconfidence was slightly associated with worse cognitive abilities (the relationship was mediated by bullshit detection ability) and higher self-esteem, but no relationships with dark traits were found. This finding is yet another evidence of the double curse of the Dunning-Kruger effect, i.e. the lack of comprehension of people´s own cognitive limitations.

Prediction of self-efficacy in recognizing deepfakes based on personality traits

“…Of course, there is no denying the possibility of inflated or overestimated belief, or the Dunning-Kruger effect ( Koc et al , 2022 ), which in the context of this study means that people who have high self-efficacy in detecting deepfakes actually have low actual abilities. In their research on bullshit detection, Cavojová et al . (2022) explained that the overestimation is caused by metacognitive (un) awareness , i.e.…”

Individual differences in overconfidence: A new measurement approach

“…In addition to testing for correlations among the overconfidence measures, we set out to test whether the GOT contains predictive validity. Specifically, we assessed correlations between the GOT and behavioral outcomes related to so-called "epistemically suspect beliefs" (Pennycook, 2022b) that have previously been associated with overconfidence: namely, an increased susceptibility to false conspiracies (Pennycook et al, 2022a;Vitriol & Marsh, 2018), misinformation (Lyons et al, 2021), and bullshit receptivity (Cavojova et al, 2022;Littrell & Fugelsang, 2023). A commonality across these outcomes is the ability to discern between low and high-quality information, variously defined; a key benchmark for a generalized measure of overconfidence.…”

“…A commonality across these outcomes is the ability to discern between low and high-quality information, variously defined; a key benchmark for a generalized measure of overconfidence. To assess not just overall significance but also effect sizes, we also contrasted the predictive power of the GOT against performance on the analytic thinking and numeracy tasks, which are established correlates of our outcome measures (see Cavojova et al, 2022;Pennycook et al, 2015;Pennycook & Rand, 2019;Salvi et al, 2022;Šrol, 2022).…”

Individual Differences in Overconfidence: A New Measurement Approach

“…In addition to testing for correlations among the overconfidence measures (i.e., the GOT, cognitive, and numeracy tasks), we set out to test whether the GOT was able to predict outcomes of interest. Specifically, we assessed correlations between the GOT and behavioural outcomes related to so-called "epistemically suspect beliefs" (Pennycook, 2022b) that have previously been associated with overconfidence: namely, an increased susceptibility to false conspiracies (Pennycook et al, 2022a;Vitriol & Marsh, 2018), misinformation (Lyons et al, 2021), and bullshit receptivity (Cavojova et al, 2022;Littrell & Fugelsang, 2023). A commonality across these outcomes is the ability to discern between low and high-quality information, variously defined; a key benchmark for a generalized measure of overconfidence.…”