What we really know about our abilities and our knowledge

Recently, it has become popular to state that “people hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains” [Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognising one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77(6), (1999) 1121]. Research that supports this point tells only half of the story—in a manner documented by Cronbach’s [Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, (1957) 671] classic article on the “two disciplines of scientific psychology.” That is, the recent research has only documented the experimental side of the scientific divide (which focuses on means and ignores individual differences). The current paper shows that research from the other side of the scientific divide, namely the correlational approach (which focuses on individual differences), provides a very different perspective for people’s views of their own intellectual abilities and knowledge. Previous research is reviewed, and an empirical study of 228 adults between 21 and 62 years of age is described where self-report assessments of abilities and knowledge are compared with objective measures. Correlations of self-rating and objective-score pairings show both substantial convergent and discriminant validity, indicating that individuals have both generally accurate and differentiated views of their relative standing on abilities and knowledge.

[1]  Alexander Seeshing Yeung,et al.  Longitudinal Structural Equation Models of Academic Self-Concept and Achievement: Gender Differences in the Development of Math and English Constructs , 1998 .

[2]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[3]  W. Wittmann,et al.  Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem solving performances via Brunswik-symmetry , 1999 .

[4]  Herbert W. Marsh,et al.  A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification , 1990 .

[5]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[6]  Richard D. Roberts,et al.  Learning and Individual Differences: Process, Trait and Content Determinants , 1999 .

[7]  R. Shavelson,et al.  Self-Concept: Validation of Construct Interpretations , 1976 .

[8]  M. Alicke Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. , 1985 .

[9]  L. Cronbach The two disciplines of scientific psychology. , 1957 .

[10]  D. Dunning,et al.  Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability , 1989 .

[11]  S. Lichtenstein,et al.  Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1 , 1977 .

[12]  P. Ackerman,et al.  Domain-specific knowledge as the "dark matter" of adult intelligence: Gf/Gc, personality and interest correlates. , 2000, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[13]  P. Ackerman,et al.  Assessing individual differences in knowledge: Knowledge, intelligence, and related traits. , 1999 .

[14]  R H Maki,et al.  The relationship between comprehension and metacomprehension ability , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  M. L. Klotz,et al.  Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. , 1995 .

[16]  P. Ackerman,et al.  The locus of adult intelligence: knowledge, abilities, and nonability traits. , 1999, Psychology and aging.

[17]  J. Kruger,et al.  Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  R. Moreland,et al.  Academic Achievement and Self-Evaluations of Academic Performance. , 1981 .

[19]  J. Kruger Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  P. Ackerman Personality, Self‐Concept, Interests, and Intelligence: Which Construct Doesn't Fit? , 1997 .

[21]  M. Lundeberg,et al.  Highly Confident, but Wrong: Gender Differences and Similarities in Confidence Judgments. , 1994 .

[22]  Mary Lundeberg,et al.  Cultural influences on confidence : Country and gender , 2000 .

[23]  J. Yates,et al.  General knowledge overconfidence : Cross-national variations, response style, and reality , 1997 .

[24]  Ronald A. Ash,et al.  Self-assessment in personnel selection. , 1977 .

[25]  A. Denisi,et al.  Investigation of the uses of self-reports of abilities. , 1977 .

[26]  Phillip L. Ackerman,et al.  Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. , 1995 .

[27]  John L. Holland,et al.  The relation of self-reported competencies to aptitude test scores , 1977 .

[28]  N. Cantor,et al.  Defensive Pessimism and Stress and Coping , 1989 .

[29]  Phillip L. Ackerman,et al.  Self-report knowledge: At the crossroads of ability, interest, and personality. , 1996 .

[30]  Eric D. Heggestad,et al.  Motivational skills & self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective , 1996 .

[31]  J. Shaughnessy,et al.  Confidence-Judgment Accuracy as a Predictor of Test Performance. , 1979 .

[32]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[33]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Metacognition : knowing about knowing , 1994 .