No strong support for a Dunning-Kruger effect in creativity: analyses of self-assessment in absolute and relative terms.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 May 2024
24 May 2024
Historique:
received:
17
04
2023
accepted:
29
04
2024
medline:
25
5
2024
pubmed:
25
5
2024
entrez:
24
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Competencies related to the evaluation of own cognitive processes, called metacognitive monitoring, are crucial as they help decide whether to persist in or desist from cognitive efforts. One of the most well-known phenomena in this context-the Dunning-Kruger effect-is that less skilled people tend to overestimate their performance. This effect has been reported for various kinds of performance including creativity. More recently, however, it has been suggested that this phenomenon could be a statistical artifact caused by the better-than-average effect and by regression toward the mean. Therefore, we examined the Dunning-Kruger effect in the context of creative thinking performance (i.e., divergent thinking ability) across two studies (Study 1: N = 425; Study 2: N = 317) and applied the classical quartile-based analysis as well as newly recommended, advanced statistical approaches: the Glejser test of heteroscedasticity and nonlinear quadratic regression. We found that the results indeed depended on the employed statistical method: While classical analyses supported the Dunning-Kruger effect across all conditions, it was not consistently supported by the more advanced statistical methods. These findings are in line with recent work challenging certain assumptions of the Dunning-Kruger effect and we discuss factors that undermine accurate self-assessments, especially in the context of creative performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38789493
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61042-1
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-61042-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11883Subventions
Organisme : EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020)
ID : 896518
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ackerman, R. & Thompson, V. A. Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 607–617 (2017).
pubmed: 28625355
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
Ehrlinger, J. & Dunning, D. A. How chronic self views influence (and mislead) estimates of performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 5–17 (2003).
pubmed: 12518967
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Moore, D. A. & Healy, P. J. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 115, 502–517 (2008).
pubmed: 18426301
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502
Venter, G. & Michayluk, D. An insight into overconfidence in the forecasting abilities of financial advisors. Aust. J. Manag. 32, 545–557 (2008).
doi: 10.1177/031289620803200309
Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C. & Alicke, M. D. The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 146, 118–149 (2020).
pubmed: 31789535
doi: 10.1037/bul0000218
Zell, E. & Krizan, Z. Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9, 111–125 (2014).
pubmed: 26173249
doi: 10.1177/1745691613518075
Runco, M. A. & Jaeger, G. J. The standard definition of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 24, 92–96 (2012).
doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Silvia, P. J. Intelligence and creativity are pretty similar after all. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 599–606 (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9299-1
Weisberg, R. Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius (WH Freeman, 1993).
Silvia, P. J. Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas?. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2, 139–146 (2008).
doi: 10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.139
Dunning, D. The Dunning–Kruger effect. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology vol. 44 247–296 (Elsevier, 2011).
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A. & Holzberg, A. D. Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1082–1090 (1989).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1082
McIntosh, R. D., Fowler, E. A., Lyu, T. & Della Sala, S. Wise up: Clarifying the role of metacognition in the Dunning–Kruger effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 1882–1897 (2019).
pubmed: 30802096
doi: 10.1037/xge0000579
Lebuda, I. & Benedek, M. A systematic framework of creative metacognition. Phys. Life Rev. 46, 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2023.07.002 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2023.07.002
Rominger, C. et al. Functional brain activation patterns of creative metacognitive monitoring. Neuropsychologia 177, 108416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108416 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108416
pubmed: 36343705
Sidi, Y., Torgovitsky, I., Soibelman, D., Miron-Spektor, E. & Ackerman, R. You may be more original than you think: Predictable biases in self-assessment of originality. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 203, 103002 (2020).
pubmed: 32004640
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.103002
Ceh, S. M., Edelmann, C., Hofer, G. & Benedek, M. Assessing raters: What factors predict discernment in novice creativity raters?. J. Creat. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.515 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/jocb.515
Grohman, M., Wodniecka, Z. & Kłusak, M. Divergent thinking and evaluation skills: Do they always go together?. J. Creat. Behav. 40, 125–145 (2006).
doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01269.x
Karwowski, M., Czerwonka, M. & Kaufman, J. C. Does intelligence strengthen creative metacognition?. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 14, 353–360 (2020).
doi: 10.1037/aca0000208
Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1121–1134 (1999).
pubmed: 10626367
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
Isaacs, D. The illusion of superiority: The Dunning–Kruger effect and COVID-19. J. Paediatr. Child Health 58, 224–225 (2022).
pubmed: 35060245
doi: 10.1111/jpc.15693
Motta, M., Callaghan, T. & Sylvester, S. Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning–Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Soc. Sci. Med. 211, 274–281 (2018).
pubmed: 29966822
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.032
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E. & Bowen, K. R. What we really know about our abilities and our knowledge. Personal. Individ. Differ. 33, 587–605 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00174-X
Ackerman, P. L. & Wolman, S. D. Determinants and validity of self-estimates of abilities and self-concept measures. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 13, 57–78 (2007).
pubmed: 17535132
doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.13.2.57
Krajc, M. & Ortmann, A. Are the unskilled really that unaware? An alternative explanation. J. Econ. Psychol. 29, 724–738 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.12.006
Krueger, J. & Mueller, R. A. Unskilled, unaware, or both? The Better-Than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82(2), 180 (2002).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.180
Burson, K. A., Larrick, R. P. & Klayman, J. Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: How perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 60–77 (2006).
pubmed: 16448310
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.60
Magnus, J. R. & Peresetsky, A. A. A statistical explanation of the dunning–kruger effect. Front. Psychol. 13, 840180 (2022).
pubmed: 35401341
pmcid: 8992690
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180
Alicke, M. D. & Govorun, O. The better-than-average effect. Self Soc. Judgm. 1, 85–106 (2005).
Mabe, P. A. & West, S. G. Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 280–296 (1982).
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280
Campbell, D. T. & Kenny, D. A. A Primer on Regression Artifacts (Guilford Press, 1999).
Nesselroade, J. R., Stigler, S. M. & Baltes, P. B. Regression toward the mean and the study of change. Psychol. Bull. 88, 622–637 (1980).
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.622
Gignac, G. E. & Zajenkowski, M. The Dunning–Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data. Intelligence 80, 101449 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449
Glejser, H. A new test for heteroskedasticity. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 64, 316–323 (1969).
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1969.10500976
Gignac, G. E. The association between objective and subjective financial literacy: Failure to observe the Dunning–Kruger effect. Personal. Individ. Differ. 184, 111224 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111224
Hofer, G., Mraulak, V., Grinschgl, S. & Neubauer, A. C. Less-intelligent and unaware? Accuracy and Dunning–Kruger effects for self-estimates of different aspects of intelligence. J. Intell. 10, 10 (2022).
pubmed: 35225925
pmcid: 8883889
doi: 10.3390/jintelligence10010010
Furnham, A., Zhang, J. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. The relationship between psychometric and self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality and academic achievement. Imagin. Cogn. Personal. 25, 119–145 (2005).
doi: 10.2190/530V-3M9U-7UQ8-FMBG
Pretz, J. E. & McCollum, V. A. Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 8, 227–236 (2014).
doi: 10.1037/a0035597
Pesout, O. & Nietfeld, J. L. How creative am I?: Examining judgments and predictors of creative performance. Think. Ski. Creat. 40, 100836 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100836
Urban, M. & Urban, K. Unskilled but aware of it? Cluster analysis of creative metacognition from preschool age to early adulthood. J. Creat. Behav. 55, 937–945 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/jocb.499
Hartwig, M. K. & Dunlosky, J. The contribution of judgment scale to the unskilled-and-unaware phenomenon: How evaluating others can exaggerate over-(and under-) confidence. Mem. Cognit. 42, 164–173 (2014).
pubmed: 23846414
doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0351-4
Moore, D. A. & Schatz, D. The three faces of overconfidence. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 11, 12331 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12331
Hiller, A. Comment on Gignac and Zajenkowski, “The Dunning–Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data”. Intelligence 97, 101732 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2023.101732
Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D. & Kruger, J. Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 105, 98–121 (2008).
pubmed: 19568317
pmcid: 2702783
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002
Gramzow, R. H. & Willard, G. Exaggerating current and past performance: Motivated self-enhancement versus reconstructive memory. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 1114–1125 (2006).
pubmed: 16861314
doi: 10.1177/0146167206288600
Ross, M. & Wilson, A. E. Autobiographical memory and conceptions of self: Getting better all the time. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 66–69 (2003).
doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01228
Beaudoin, M. & Desrichard, O. Are memory self-efficacy and memory performance related? A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 137, 211–241 (2011).
pubmed: 21244133
doi: 10.1037/a0022106
Blanch-Hartigan, D. Medical students’ self-assessment of performance: Results from three meta-analyses. Patient Educ. Couns. 84, 3–9 (2011).
pubmed: 20708898
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.037
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R. & Mack, D. E. The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 71, 280–294 (2000).
pubmed: 10999265
doi: 10.1080/02701367.2000.10608908
Guilford, J. P. Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. J. Creat. Behav. 1, 3–14 (1967).
doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x
Forthmann, B. et al. The be-creative effect in divergent thinking: The interplay of instruction and object frequency. Intelligence 57, 25–32 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2016.03.005
Benedek, M., Mühlmann, C., Jauk, E. & Neubauer, A. C. Assessment of divergent thinking by means of the subjective top-scoring method: Effects of the number of top-ideas and time-on-task on reliability and validity. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 7, 341–349 (2013).
pubmed: 24790683
pmcid: 4001084
doi: 10.1037/a0033644
Hofer, G., Macher, S. & Neubauer, A. C. Love is not blind: What romantic partners know about our abilities compared to ourselves, our close friends, and our acquaintances. J. Res. Personal. 98, 104211 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104211
Urban, K., & Urban, M. How can we measure metacognition in creative problem-solving? Standardization of the MCPS scale. Think. Skill. Creat. 49, 101345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101345 (2023).
Benedek, M., Christensen, A. P., Fink, A. & Beaty, R. E. Creativity assessment in neuroscience research. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 13, 218–226 (2019).
doi: 10.1037/aca0000215
Saretzki, J., Forthmann, B. & Benedek, M. A systematic quantitative review of divergent thinking assessments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts (in press)
Gignac, G. E. & Zajenkowski, M. Still no Dunning–Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller. Intelligence 97, 101733 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733
Walker, D. L., Palermo, R. & Gignac, G. E. General figure and face-specific closure ability: Predictors of trait-autism?. Curr. Psychol. 43, 1179–1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04351-4 (2024).
doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04351-4