Confidence to spare: individual differences in cognitive and metacognitive arrogance and competence
- 22 Downloads
While some individuals are able to confidently make competent choices, others make poor decisions but are unjustifiably confident. What are their individual characteristics? This study examined individual differences in cognitive and metacognitive competence and arrogance. In doing so, we determined the role of metacognitive confidence and self-monitoring in competence and arrogance. We also investigated the predictive validity of the resulting model to decision-making competence. Psychology undergraduates (N = 180) completed measures of intelligence, on-task confidence, arrogant-and dogmatic-like traits and thinking dispositions. Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed that the most parsimonious solution was a hierarchical two-factor model defined by broad Cognitive and Metacognitive Competence and Arrogance factors. The broad Competence was defined by positive loadings from Intelligence and Confidence factors and a negative loading from the Dogmatism factor. The broad Arrogance factor was defined by positive loadings from Confidence, Arrogance, and Dogmatism factors, but no loading from the Intelligence. Therefore, the study determined that the Confidence trait loaded on both factors while a first-order Intelligence factor loaded on Competence only. Thus, while arrogant individuals were as confident as competent individuals, this confidence was not justified by their performance and ability. Moreover, Arrogance positively predicted higher bias, confidence, prediction and evaluation estimates, but not actual performance on a decision task. In contrast, the Competence factor positively predicted the accuracy of performance. Supporting and extending the Koriat’s (1997) cue utilization theory, the current results indicated that test- and (systematic) individual-specific sources of diagnostic cues underlie judgment accuracy, however, they seem to play different roles for individuals based on their relative standing within the Cognitive and Metacognitive Competence and Arrogance taxonomy. Extending Dunning et.al (2003), some “people tend to be blissfully unaware of their incompetence” and are “triply cursed” as they are also dogmatic.
KeywordsConfidence Competence Arrogance Self-monitoring Bias Metacognition Decisionmaking Individual differences
This project was not funded.
Compliance with ethical standards
Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee (ID#2015/208).
Conflict of interest
The first author of this manuscript is acting as the Associate Editor of the Metacognition and Learning journal and the Guest Editor of the SI titled Applied Metacognition. The manuscript, however, will be handled by the second Guest Editor of this SI, Prof Susanne Narciss. Thus, the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Allwood, C. M., & Granhag, P. A. (1999). Feelings of confidence and the realism of confidence judgments in everyday life. In P. Juslin & H. Montgomery (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: Neo-Brunswikian and process-tracing approaches (pp. 123–146). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
- Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bruin, A.B., Kok, E.M., Lobbestael, J., & Grip, A. (2016). The impact of an online tool for monitoring and regulating learning at university: Overconfidence, learning strategy, and personality. Metacognition and Learning, 1–23.Google Scholar
- Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Handbook of competence and motivation. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
- Gorsuch, R. L. (2003). Factor analysis. Handbook of psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
- Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53–91). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Jackson, S. A., Kleitman, S., Howie, P., & Stankov, L. (2016a). ognitive abilities, monitoring, and control explain individual differences in heuristics and biases. Frontiers-Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01559.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
- Kleitman, S. (2008). Metacognition in the rationality debate: Self-confidence and its calibration. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
- Koriat, A., Nussinson, R., Bless, H., & Shaked, N. (2008). Information-based and experiencebased metacognitive judgments: Evidence from subjective confidence. In I. J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 117–135). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85–104). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
- Stankov, L. (1997). The Gf/Gc Quickie Test Battery: Unpublished test battery available from the School of Psychology, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
- Stankov, L. (1999). Mining on the “no man’s land” between intelligence and personality. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 315–337). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stankov, L., Kleitman, S., & Jackson, S. A. (2014). Measures of the Trait of Confidence. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Salofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 158–189). Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2016). Real-World Correlates of Performance on Heuristics and Biases Tasks in a Community Sample. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Fifth ed.). New York: Pearson International Edition.Google Scholar
- Thόrisdόttir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 32, 785–811.Google Scholar
- Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of perceived competence In Andrew J. Elliot & Carol S. Dweck (eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation. (pp. 73–78). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Wilhelm, O., Schroeders, U., & Schipolowski, S. (2009). BEFKI. Berliner Test zur Erfassung fluider und kristalliner Intelligenz [Berlin test of fluid and crystallized intelligence]. Unpublished Manuscript. Google Scholar
- Wilhelm, O., Schroeders, U., & Schipolowski, S. (2014). BEFKI – Berlin Test for the measurement of fluid and crystallized intelligence (middle school form). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
- Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision-making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar