Dunning–Kruger effect

They include skills from fields such as business, politics, medicine, driving, aviation, spatial memory, examinations in school, and literacy.

The rational model holds that overly positive prior beliefs about one's skills are the source of false self-assessment.

Inaccurate self-assessment could potentially lead people to making bad decisions, such as choosing a career for which they are unfit, or engaging in dangerous behavior.

[2] This phenomenon can be understood as a form of the false-consensus effect, i.e., the tendency to "overestimate the extent to which other people share one's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours".

[12][5] This is sometimes termed the "dual-burden" account, since low performers are affected by two burdens: they lack a skill and they are unaware of this deficiency.

Many criticisms of the Dunning–Kruger effect target this explanation but accept the empirical findings that low performers tend to overestimate their skills.

When done in absolute terms, self-assessment and performance are measured according to objective standards, e.g. concerning how many quiz questions were answered correctly.

[19][7][20] The initial study by David Dunning and Justin Kruger examined the performance and self-assessment of undergraduate students in inductive, deductive, and abductive logical reasoning; English grammar; and appreciation of humor.

[24][25][21] Overall, the Dunning–Kruger effect has been studied across a wide range of tasks, in aviation, business, debating, chess, driving, literacy, medicine, politics, spatial memory, and other fields.

It assumes that people of low skill level are unable to properly assess their performance because they have not yet acquired the discriminatory ability to do so.

Some findings suggest that poor performers have reduced metacognitive sensitivity, but it is not clear that its extent is sufficient to explain the Dunning–Kruger effect.

[15] An indirect argument for the metacognitive model is based on the observation that training people in logical reasoning helps them make more accurate self-assessments.

[20][9][13] A different interpretation is further removed from the psychological level and sees the Dunning–Kruger effect as mainly a statistical artifact.

[13][7][30] Most researchers acknowledge that regression toward the mean is a relevant statistical effect that must be taken into account when interpreting the empirical findings.

[35][9] Some theorists, like Gilles Gignac and Marcin Zajenkowski, go further and argue that regression toward the mean in combination with other cognitive biases, like the better-than-average effect, can explain most of the empirical findings.

[15] According to the better-than-average effect, people generally tend to rate their abilities, attributes, and personality traits as better than average.

[7] Some critics of this model have argued that it can explain the Dunning–Kruger effect only when assessing one's ability relative to one's peer group.

[40][41] Based on statistical considerations, Nuhfer et al. arrive at the conclusion that there is no strong tendency to overly positive self-assessment and that the label "unskilled and unaware of it" applies only to few people.

[42][43] Science communicator Jonathan Jarry makes the case that this effect is the only one shown in the original and subsequent papers.

[45] The rational model of the Dunning–Kruger effect explains the observed regression toward the mean not as a statistical artifact but as the result of prior beliefs.

It holds that the error is caused by overly positive prior beliefs and not by the inability to correctly assess oneself.

[2] A further explanation, sometimes given by theorists with an economic background, focuses on the fact that participants in the corresponding studies lack incentive to give accurate self-assessments.

[47][48] In such cases, intellectual laziness or a desire to look good to the experimenter may motivate participants to give overly positive self-assessments.

For example, according to Gilles E. Gignac and Marcin Zajenkowski, it can have long-term consequences by leading poor performers into careers for which they are unfit.

For example, Pavel et al. hold that overconfidence can lead pilots to operate a new aircraft for which they lack adequate training or to engage in flight maneuvers that exceed their proficiency.

According to Lisa TenEyck, the tendencies of physicians in training to be overconfident must be considered to ensure the appropriate degree of supervision and feedback.

In this sense, optimism can lead people to experience their situation more positively, and overconfidence may help them achieve even unrealistic goals.

However it can be detrimental in the planning phase since the agent may ignore bad odds, take unnecessary risks, or fail to prepare for contingencies.

[52] Historical precursors of the Dunning–Kruger effect were expressed by theorists such as Charles Darwin ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge") and Bertrand Russell ("...in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt").

[53][5] In 2000, Kruger and Dunning were awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize in recognition of the scientific work recorded in "their modest report".