Revisiting the Dunning-Kruger effect: Composite measures and heterogeneity by gender

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Anna Adamecz , Radina Ilieva , Nikki Shure
{"title":"Revisiting the Dunning-Kruger effect: Composite measures and heterogeneity by gender","authors":"Anna Adamecz ,&nbsp;Radina Ilieva ,&nbsp;Nikki Shure","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE) states that people with lower levels of the ability tend to self-assess their ability less accurately than people with relatively higher levels of the ability. Thus, the correlation between one's objective cognitive abilities and self-assessed abilities is higher at higher levels of objective cognitive abilities. There has been much debate as to whether this effect actually exists or is a statistical artefact. This paper replicates and extends Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020) and Dunkel, Nedelec, and van der Linden (2023) to test whether the DKE exists using several measures of ability and nationally representative data from a British birth cohort study. To do this, we construct a measure of objective cognitive abilities using 18 tests conducted at ages 5, 10, and 16, and a measure of subjective self-assessed abilities using estimates of school performance and being clever at ages 10 and 16. We replicate their models and show that the DKE exists in our secondary data. Importantly, we are the first to look at whether this relationship is heterogeneous by gender and find that while the self-assessment bias is gender specific, the DKE is not. The DKE comes from men relatively overestimating and women relatively underestimating their abilities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 102362"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325000291","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE) states that people with lower levels of the ability tend to self-assess their ability less accurately than people with relatively higher levels of the ability. Thus, the correlation between one's objective cognitive abilities and self-assessed abilities is higher at higher levels of objective cognitive abilities. There has been much debate as to whether this effect actually exists or is a statistical artefact. This paper replicates and extends Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020) and Dunkel, Nedelec, and van der Linden (2023) to test whether the DKE exists using several measures of ability and nationally representative data from a British birth cohort study. To do this, we construct a measure of objective cognitive abilities using 18 tests conducted at ages 5, 10, and 16, and a measure of subjective self-assessed abilities using estimates of school performance and being clever at ages 10 and 16. We replicate their models and show that the DKE exists in our secondary data. Importantly, we are the first to look at whether this relationship is heterogeneous by gender and find that while the self-assessment bias is gender specific, the DKE is not. The DKE comes from men relatively overestimating and women relatively underestimating their abilities.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信