IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v80y2020ics0160289620300271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data

Author

Listed:
  • Gignac, Gilles E.
  • Zajenkowski, Marcin

Abstract

The Dunning-Kruger hypothesis states that the degree to which people can estimate their ability accurately depends, in part, upon possessing the ability in question. Consequently, people with lower levels of the ability tend to self-assess their ability less well than people who have relatively higher levels of the ability. The most common method used to test the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis involves plotting the self-assessed and objectively assessed means across four categories (quartiles) of objective ability. However, this method has been argued to be confounded by the better-than-average effect and regression toward the mean. In this investigation, it is argued that the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis can be tested validly with two inferential statistical techniques: the Glejser test of heteroscedasticity and nonlinear (quadratic) regression. On the basis of a sample of 929 general community participants who completed a self-assessment of intelligence and the Advanced Raven's Progressive Matrices, we failed to identify statistically significant heteroscedasticity, contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. Additionally, the association between objectively measured intelligence and self-assessed intelligence was found to be essentially entirely linear, again, contrary to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. It is concluded that, although the phenomenon described by the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis may be to some degree plausible for some skills, the magnitude of the effect may be much smaller than reported previously.

Suggested Citation

  • Gignac, Gilles E. & Zajenkowski, Marcin, 2020. "The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:80:y:2020:i:c:s0160289620300271
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289620300271
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krajc, Marian & Ortmann, Andreas, 2008. "Are the unskilled really that unaware? An alternative explanation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 724-738, November.
    2. Gignac, Gilles E., 2018. "Socially desirable responding suppresses the association between self-assessed intelligence and task-based intelligence," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 50-58.
    3. Zajenkowski, Marcin & Gignac, Gilles E., 2018. "Why do angry people overestimate their intelligence? Neuroticism as a suppressor of the association between Trait-Anger and subjectively assessed intelligence," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 12-21.
    4. L. G. Godfrey & C. D. Orme & J. M. C. Santos Silva, 2006. "Simulation-based tests for heteroskedasticity in linear regression models: Some further results," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 9(1), pages 76-97, March.
    5. L. G. Godfrey & C. D. Orme, 1999. "The robustness, reliabiligy and power of heteroskedasticity tests," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 169-194.
    6. Marian Krajc, 2008. "Are the Unskilled Really That Unaware? Understanding Seemingly Biased Self-Assessments," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp373, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    7. Harvey, A. C. & Phillips, G. D. A., 1974. "A comparison of the power of some tests for heteroskedasticity in the general linear model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 307-316, December.
    8. Gerhard van de Venter & David Michayluk, 2008. "An Insight into Overconfidence in the Forecasting Abilities of Financial Advisors," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 32(3), pages 545-557, March.
    9. Gignac, Gilles E. & Zajenkowski, Marcin, 2019. "People tend to overestimate their romantic partner's intelligence even more than their own," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 41-51.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Hugten, Joeri & Coreynen, Wim & Vanderstraeten, Johanna & van Witteloostuijn, Arjen, 2023. "The Dunning-Kruger effect and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: How tenure and search distance jointly direct entrepreneurial self-efficacy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Jan R. Magnus & Anatoly A. Peresetsky, 2021. "A statistical explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect," Working Papers w0286, New Economic School (NES).
    3. Gignac, Gilles E., 2024. "Rethinking the Dunning-Kruger effect: Negligible influence on a limited segment of the population," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Dunkel, Curtis S. & Nedelec, Joseph & van der Linden, Dimitri, 2023. "Reevaluating the Dunning-Kruger effect: A response to and replication of Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020)," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dunkel, Curtis S. & Nedelec, Joseph & van der Linden, Dimitri, 2023. "Reevaluating the Dunning-Kruger effect: A response to and replication of Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020)," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Feld, Jan & Sauermann, Jan & de Grip, Andries, 2017. "Estimating the relationship between skill and overconfidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 18-24.
    3. Brookins, Philip & Lucas, Adriana & Ryvkin, Dmitry, 2014. "Reducing within-group overconfidence through group identity and between-group confidence judgments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Gignac, Gilles E. & Zajenkowski, Marcin, 2019. "People tend to overestimate their romantic partner's intelligence even more than their own," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 41-51.
    5. José Murteira & Esmeralda Ramalho & Joaquim Ramalho, 2011. "Heteroskedasticity Testing Through Comparison of Wald-Type Statistics," GEMF Working Papers 2011-05, GEMF, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra.
    6. Krawczyk, Michał & Wilamowski, Maciej, 2019. "Task difficulty and overconfidence. Evidence from distance running," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PB).
    7. Sawler, James, 2021. "Economics 101-ism and the Dunning-Kruger effect: Reducing overconfidence among introductory macroeconomics students," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    8. Pallavi Kompella & Brant Gracia & Lucy LeBlanc & Shelly Engelman & Chinmayee Kulkarni & Niral Desai & Viviana June & Stephen March & Sarah Pattengale & Gabriel Rodriguez-Rivera & Seung Woo Ryu & Isabe, 2020. "Interactive youth science workshops benefit student participants and graduate student mentors," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-10, March.
    9. Murad, Zahra & Starmer, Chris, 2021. "Confidence snowballing and relative performance feedback," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 550-572.
    10. Jan R. Magnus & Anatoly A. Peresetsky, 2021. "A statistical explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect," Working Papers w0286, New Economic School (NES).
    11. Zajenkowski, Marcin & Gignac, Gilles E., 2021. "Telling people they are intelligent correlates with the feeling of narcissistic uniqueness: The influence of IQ feedback on temporary state narcissism," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Meeran, Sheik & Goodwin, Paul & Yalabik, Baris, 2016. "A parsimonious explanation of observed biases when forecasting one’s own performance," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 112-120.
    13. Jan R. Magnus & Ashoke K. Sinha, 2005. "On Theil's errors," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 8(1), pages 39-54, March.
    14. Machado, Jose A. F. & Silva, J. M. C. Santos, 2000. "Glejser's test revisited," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 189-202, July.
    15. Ryvkin, Dmitry & Krajč, Marian & Ortmann, Andreas, 2012. "Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1012-1031.
    16. Chris D. Orme & Takashi Yamagata, 2014. "A Heteroskedasticity-Robust F -Test Statistic for Individual Effects," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5-6), pages 431-471, August.
    17. Gignac, Gilles E. & Zajenkowski, Marcin, 2021. "The frustrated narcissist: Intelligence may reduce the chances of developing narcissistic rivalry," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    18. Oberlechner, Thomas & Osler, Carol, 2012. "Survival of Overconfidence in Currency Markets," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 91-113, February.
    19. Olubunmi Edward Ogunlusi & Olalekan Obademi, 2021. "The Impact of Behavioural Finance on Investment Decision-making: A Study of Selected Investment Banks in Nigeria," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 22(6), pages 1345-1361, December.
    20. Adrian C. Darnell, 1994. "A Dictionary Of Econometrics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 118.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:80:y:2020:i:c:s0160289620300271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.