Cited by 31Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsMemory Processes and InfluencesHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Who knows what? Knowledge misattribution in the division of cognitive labor.

Fisher, Matthew, Oppenheimer, Daniel M.·2021·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Abstract

As technology advances, people increasingly outsource cognitive tasks and can more easily access others' knowledge. While externalized aids often support human abilities, they may also make it more difficult for people to assess their own competence. Indeed, using online search engines leads people to treat searchable information as if they already know it (Fisher et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 2015, 144 , 674). Six primary and two supplemental studies ( N = 3,262) extend previous research by exploring how illusions of knowledge result from reliance on other agents. After teaming with knowledgeable partners (artificially intelligent agents or human teammates) on a trivia quiz, people overestimated how well they would perform on future quizzes for which help was not available; this bias was not evident for participants who never received help. Moreover, overconfidence was insensitive to whether assistance was provided on hard versus easy problems, or even whether the assistance was accurate. Receiving outside assistance creates an ambiguity regarding who deserves credit for success or blame for failure. When this ambiguity is removed, people become better calibrated. These results indicate that reliance on technology and outside knowledge may change our view of ourselves-convincing us we are more capable than we really are. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xap0000310

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Collaboration with AI during quiz solving increases the overestimation of one's own ability to succeed in the quiz without external help.

    “Fisher & Oppenheimer argue that overconfidence is caused by a misattribution of knowledge and demonstrate (see Fisher & Oppenheimer 2021, Experiment 1) that “collaboration” with AI during quiz solving increases the overestimation of one's own ability to succeed in the quiz without external help.”
  • The emergence of IOED in digital contexts is more likely driven by knowledge misattribution rather than by the presentation of numerous snippets.

    “Importantly, they demonstrate a similar effect in an interface fundamentally different from search engines, suggesting that the emergence of IOED in digital contexts is more likely driven by knowledge misattribution (Fisher & Oppenheimer, 2021;Ward, 2021) rather than by the presentation of numerous snippets (Eliseev & Marsh, 2023).”

Authors
Fisher, M., & Oppenheimer, D. M.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Published
2021-06
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
292-306
ISSN
  • 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2192
OpenAlex
W2797046728
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
overconfidence, cognitive work, dependence on others, AI agents, trivia quiz, calibration, self-assessment
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review