Abstract

The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is a measure of analytical reasoning that cues an intuitive but incorrect response that must be rejected for successful performance to be attained. The CRT yields two types of errors: Intuitive errors, which are attributed to Type 1 processes; and non-intuitive errors, which result from poor numeracy skills or deficient reasoning. Past research shows that participants who commit the highest numbers of errors on the CRT overestimate their performance the most, whereas those with the lowest error-rates tend to slightly underestimate. This is an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE). The present study examined how intuitive vs. non-intuitive errors contribute to overestimation in the CRT at different levels of performance. Female undergraduate students completed a seven-item CRT test and subsequently estimated their raw score. They also filled out the Faith in Intuition (FI) questionnaire, which is a dispositional measure of intuitive thinking. Data was separated into quartiles based on level of performance on the CRT. The results demonstrated the DKE. Additionally, intuitive and non-intuitive errors predicted miscalibration among low, but not high performers. However, intuitive errors were a stronger predictor of miscalibration. Finally, FI was positively correlated with CRT self-estimates and miscalibration, indicating that participants who perceived themselves to be more intuitive were worse at estimating their score. These results taken together suggest that participants who perform poorly in the CRT and also those who score higher in intuitive thinking disposition are more susceptible to the influences of heuristic-based cues, such as answer fluency, when judging their performance.

Highlights

  • People overestimate their level of skill, knowledge, and performance in a variety of contexts (Dunning et al, 2003; De Bruin et al, 2017; Sanchez and Dunning, 2018)

  • To shed light on this, the present study explores the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) within the context of a reflective-reasoning test, where a compelling, intuitive but incorrect response must be overridden for successful performance to be attained

  • Low performers made significantly more intuitive than non-intuitive errors, in a ratio much higher than the upper-quartile performers. This suggests that low performers were either (1) less likely to initiate Type 2 processes to verify the correctness of the intuitive response or that (2) initiation of Type 2 processes did not lead to a change of the initial response

Read more

Summary

Introduction

People overestimate their level of skill, knowledge, and performance in a variety of contexts (Dunning et al, 2003; De Bruin et al, 2017; Sanchez and Dunning, 2018). People with the lowest scores on a test tend to show the highest overestimations of their performance, midrange performers show less overestimation, and the best performers tend to slightly underestimate themselves (e.g., Kruger and Dunning, 1999; Burson et al, 2006; Ehrlinger et al, 2008; Moore and Healy, 2008; Pennycook et al, 2017). This phenomenon is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE). To shed light on this, the present study explores the DKE within the context of a reflective-reasoning test, where a compelling, intuitive but incorrect response must be overridden for successful performance to be attained

Objectives
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call