Differences Between Functional and Subjective Overconfidence in Postdiction Judgments of Test Performance

Abstract

Introduction. Recent research has shown that students tend be overconfident when judging future performance on coursework, particularly students with lower academic ability. Some research suggests that these lower performing students are “doubly cursed” in that they are not only less capable of assessing their own performance, but also unaware of their own metacognitive deficits. In contrast, other research has suggested that while low performers are certainly less capable, they are quite aware of that deficit. The present study investigated this issue in the context of judgments made about past performance (i.e., postdictions) on tests.Method. One hundred thirty participants from an Introductory Psychology university class completed postdiction judgments of performance and confidence after three exams. Analyses of variance were used to compare low versus high-performing students.Results. Findings showed that low performing students were more likely to overestimate their past test performance, but were also less subjectively confident in the accuracy of those postdiction judgments. Additionally, while the tendency to overestimate past performance did not improve across multiple tests for the low performers, subjective confidence in those postdictions did, such that low performers became slightly more confident in their postdictions over time.Discussion and conclusion. This research highlights the fact that low performing students are not good at assessing performance, even over repeated testing. While they seem to be aware of their poor metacognitive judgment, their confidence in those judgments may increase over time. These results and their implications for educators and for theories of metacognitive awareness are discussed.