<p>This may not answer your question directly, but is related:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-kruger_effect" rel="noreferrer">Kruger and Dunning</a> (1999) conducted a study in which people performed a variety of 'tests' in different domains, such as logical reasoning, grammar, and humor. After taking a test, participants were asked to judge their performance relative to other test-takers, and to estimate their objective score on the test (how many questions were answered correctly).</p>

<p>What they found was that the subjects who performed the <em>worst</em> actually overestimated their performance the <em>most</em>. If you take their performance estimate as a proxy for confidence, then  it supports your hypothesis-- but only to a relative degree. That is to say, participants who performed poorly did not estimate their ability to be better than good performers and vice versa; however, those who performed the worst were more confident in their ability. It's a bit confusing, and D&amp;K can explain it better-- there's actually a paragraph in their article (second to last) which relates their findings to work on overconfidence.</p>

<p>The explanation that Kruger and Dunning give for this effect is that the metacognitive ability to assess one's performance is a correlated with actual performance on the same task. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, those who perform poorly may be unaware of their poor performance, due to their inability to predict how well they did.</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/vLyXG.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Kruger, J., &amp; Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How
  difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated
  self-assessments. <em>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</em>, 77,
  1121-1134.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T00:43:11.517Z
Interesting article. I wonder if that is any more than just a result of the imperfect correlation between actual ability and perceived ability (I've often seen correlations in the .2 to .6 range), along with the inherent floor and ceiling effects of such scales. I.e., if you have low ability, you have more scope to over estimate. If you are high ability, then you have minimal scope to overestimate because you are already high.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T00:49:12.777Z
@JeromyAnglim that was my first thought too (re: ceiling effects, regression to the mean), though they discuss this in attempt to rule out that explanation. i think there's still some room for debate, but it does have 1000+ citations, so a lot of people seem to buy into it, for whatever that's worth.
Jeff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T01:24:42.947Z
Interesting. It's been a while since I've read the Kruger and Dunning article, I'll have a read and perhaps post a specific question, as I find the issue quite interesting.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T16:56:15.177Z
Thanks! I'll have to think about this a bit more. I'm familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, but I hadn't yet made the connection between those findings and a confidence-accuracy correlation. Thanks.
Andy DeSoto
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T00:33:45.060Z
2012-02-23T00:54:50.120Z
2012-02-23T00:54:50.120Z
Jeff
<p>Normally, when an individual is more confident in a particular response (e.g., memory decision, general knowledge answer), he or she is also more likely to be accurate. There are also studies in which higher confidence is generally demonstrated to be unassociated with higher accuracy.</p>

<p>Are there any studies which demonstrate that the more confident an individual is, on average, the more likely he or she is to be <em>incorrect</em>?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-22T16:09:06.333Z
As a specific example, it can be seen in the articles referenced [here](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/55/what-is-the-relationship-between-self-perceptions-and-actual-driving-ability/152#152), confidence in driving ability appears to show no significant correlation with accuracy.
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-22T22:33:47.963Z
Perhaps in questions where there is no correct answer. All answers are insufficient, so the more confident you are the more wrong you are.
Preece
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T08:49:15.923Z
I might be misreading you, but you start by mentioning studies which show no correlation. So you are questioning these studies? In that case could you please reference them, so others can see which ones you are talking about and whether more recent ones are available? Would more recent studies which also show no correlation satisfy you?
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T16:54:38.937Z
Hi Steven, I'm actually curious about the negative relationship, not the zero one (i.e., as is in the last sentence up there). I will link some studies, but Ben's link is one example of no relationship between confidence and accuracy.
Andy DeSoto
<cognitive-psychology><memory><decision-making><confidence>
When is higher confidence predictive of less accuracy?
Andy DeSoto
# When is higher confidence predictive of less accuracy?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-02-22)

Normally, when an individual is more confident in a particular response (e.g., memory decision, general knowledge answer), he or she is also more likely to be accurate. There are also studies in which higher confidence is generally demonstrated to be unassociated with higher accuracy.

Are there any studies which demonstrate that the more confident an individual is, on average, the more likely he or she is to be *incorrect*?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, memory, decision-making, confidence

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: As a specific example, it can be seen in the articles referenced [here](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/55/what-is-the-relationship-between-self-perceptions-and-actual-driving-ability/152#152), confidence in driving ability appears to show no significant correlation with accuracy.  
> **username_2**: Perhaps in questions where there is no correct answer. All answers are insufficient, so the more confident you are the more wrong you are.  
> **username_3**: I might be misreading you, but you start by mentioning studies which show no correlation. So you are questioning these studies? In that case could you please reference them, so others can see which ones you are talking about and whether more recent ones are available? Would more recent studies which also show no correlation satisfy you?  
> **username_0**: Hi Steven, I'm actually curious about the negative relationship, not the zero one (i.e., as is in the last sentence up there). I will link some studies, but Ben's link is one example of no relationship between confidence and accuracy.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-02-23. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

This may not answer your question directly, but is related:

[Kruger and Dunning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-kruger_effect) (1999) conducted a study in which people performed a variety of 'tests' in different domains, such as logical reasoning, grammar, and humor. After taking a test, participants were asked to judge their performance relative to other test-takers, and to estimate their objective score on the test (how many questions were answered correctly).

What they found was that the subjects who performed the *worst* actually overestimated their performance the *most*. If you take their performance estimate as a proxy for confidence, then it supports your hypothesis-- but only to a relative degree. That is to say, participants who performed poorly did not estimate their ability to be better than good performers and vice versa; however, those who performed the worst were more confident in their ability. It's a bit confusing, and D&K can explain it better-- there's actually a paragraph in their article (second to last) which relates their findings to work on overconfidence.

The explanation that Kruger and Dunning give for this effect is that the metacognitive ability to assess one's performance is a correlated with actual performance on the same task. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, those who perform poorly may be unaware of their poor performance, due to their inability to predict how well they did.

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/vLyXG.jpg)

> Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How
> difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated
> self-assessments. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 77,
> 1121-1134.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Interesting article. I wonder if that is any more than just a result of the imperfect correlation between actual ability and perceived ability (I've often seen correlations in the .2 to .6 range), along with the inherent floor and ceiling effects of such scales. I.e., if you have low ability, you have more scope to over estimate. If you are high ability, then you have minimal scope to overestimate because you are already high.  
> **username_4**: @JeromyAnglim that was my first thought too (re: ceiling effects, regression to the mean), though they discuss this in attempt to rule out that explanation. i think there's still some room for debate, but it does have 1000+ citations, so a lot of people seem to buy into it, for whatever that's worth.  
> **username_5**: Interesting. It's been a while since I've read the Kruger and Dunning article, I'll have a read and perhaps post a specific question, as I find the issue quite interesting.  
> **username_0**: Thanks! I'll have to think about this a bit more. I'm familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, but I hadn't yet made the connection between those findings and a confidence-accuracy correlation. Thanks.  

---

