Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent

Abstract

People are typically overly optimistic when evaluating the quality of their performance on social and intellectual tasks. In particular, poor performers grossly overestimate their performances because their incompetence deprives them of the skills needed to recognize their deficits. Five studies demonstrated that poor performers lack insight into their shortcomings even in real world settings and when given incentives to be accurate. An additional meta-analysis showed that it was lack of insight into their own errors (and not mistaken assessments of their peers) that led to overly optimistic estimates among poor performers. Along the way, these studies ruled out recent alternative accounts that have been proposed to explain why poor performers hold such positive impressions of their performance.

Differences Between Functional and Subjective Overconfidence in Postdiction Judgments of Test Performance

“…The present study provided new evidence that low performing students suffer from functional overconfidence in their postdiction judgments of performance, but that they also seem to generally be aware that their metacomprehension is not well calibrated. As such our data lend more credence to the hypothesis that the "unskilled are aware" (Miller & Geraci, 2011) rather than the hypothesis that the "unskilled are unaware" (e.g., Dunning et al, 2003;Ehrlinger et al, 2008). Given that low performing students seem fairly aware of their own metacomprehension deficits both before and after testing, but that their confidence may improve under certain conditions, future research should include interventions which focus on (a) increasing awareness of the connection of confidence to actual performance, and (b) requiring students to practice reflecting on past performance more, rather than only being concerned with predicting upcoming performance.…”

“…Recent research on this issue has focused primarily on predictions rather than postdictions, and the findings have been mixed. One account has argued that academically poorer students are "double cursed" (Ehrlinger et al, 2008) in that they are unskilled and unaware; however, other researchers have found that poor performing students are unskilled but very much aware of their poor metacognitive judgments (Miller & Geraci, 2011). One of the aims of the present study was to investigate this issue by providing evidence to help adjudicate between these two competing explanations, with a particular focus on postdiction accuracy and confidence judgments.…”

“…Given earlier research, we hypothesized that low performing students would show poorer postdiction absolute accuracy (i.e., functional overconfidence) as compared to high performing students. With regards to students' subjective confidence in their postdictions, if the data showed high confidence judgments in the low performers, it would bolster the "double cursed" account (Ehrlinger et al, 2008); on the other hand, if low performing students showed lower confidence judgments, the data would provide support for the "unskilled but aware" account (Miller & Geraci, 2011).…”

“…The reasons for this deficit remain unclear. One view argued by some researchers is that the cause is a lack of awareness of one's own poor metacomprehension; that is, low performers are "double cursed" because they are (a) less capable of assessing their own performance, but also (b) unaware of their poor metacognitive skills (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008; see also Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003). Another view is that the high performers are simply closer to the ceiling and thus have less room to vary their judgments compared to the low performers (Krueger & Mueller, 2002).…”

Follow your heart or your head? A longitudinal study of the facilitating role of calling and ability in the pursuit of a challenging career.

“…We measured participants' assessment of their own abilities in music with a two-item scale that captured their general sense of their musical talent on the Times 1, 2, and 3 surveys. Self-estimate of ability measures typically ask participants to rate their ability relative to a salient, proximal reference group, for instance, to other people the same age (Ackerman, Beier, & Bowen, 2002), other students in their class, or other competitors in the same tournament (Ehrlinger et al, 2008). In line with this previous research, the only salient, proximal reference group in the present study was peers in the same musical specialty at the 2001 summer music program (e.g., others who play the same instrument), to whom participants compared themselves on the Times 1, 2, and 3 surveys.…”