CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,865Personality Traits and PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace

Open access
Dunning, David, Heath, Chip, Suls, Jerry M.·2004·Psychological Science in the Public Interest
DOI 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research from numerous corners of psychological inquiry suggests that self-assessments of skill and character are often flawed in substantive and systematic ways. We review empirical findings on the imperfect nature of self-assessment and discuss implications for three real-world domains: health, education, and the workplace. In general, people's self-views hold only a tenuous to modest relationship with their actual behavior and performance. The correlation between self-ratings of skill and actual performance in many domains is moderate to meager—indeed, at times, other people's predictions of a person's outcomes prove more accurate than that person's self-predictions. In addition, people overrate themselves. On average, people say that they are “above average” in skill (a conclusion that defies statistical possibility), overestimate the likelihood that they will engage in desirable behaviors and achieve favorable outcomes, furnish overly optimistic estimates of when they will complete future projects, and reach judgments with too much confidence. Several psychological processes conspire to produce flawed self-assessments. Research focusing on health echoes these findings. People are unrealistically optimistic about their own health risks compared with those of other people. They also overestimate how distinctive their opinions and preferences (e.g., discomfort with alcohol) are among their peers—a misperception that can have a deleterious impact on their health. Unable to anticipate how they would respond to emotion-laden situations, they mispredict the preferences of patients when asked to step in and make treatment decisions for them. Guided by mistaken but seemingly plausible theories of health and disease, people misdiagnose themselves—a phenomenon that can have severe consequences for their health and longevity. Similarly, research in education finds that students' assessments of their performance tend to agree only moderately with those of their teachers and mentors. Students seem largely unable to assess how well or poorly they have comprehended material they have just read. They also tend to be overconfident in newly learned skills, at times because the common educational practice of massed training appears to promote rapid acquisition of skill—as well as self-confidence—but not necessarily the retention of skill. Several interventions, however, can be introduced to prompt students to evaluate their skill and learning more accurately. In the workplace, flawed self-assessments arise all the way up the corporate ladder. Employees tend to overestimate their skill, making it difficult to give meaningful feedback. CEOs also display overconfidence in their judgments, particularly when stepping into new markets or novel projects—for example, proposing acquisitions that hurt, rather then help, the price of their company's stock. We discuss several interventions aimed at circumventing the consequences of such flawed assessments; these include training people to routinely make cognitive repairs correcting for biased self-assessments and requiring people to justify their decisions in front of their peers. The act of self-assessment is an intrinsically difficult task, and we enumerate several obstacles that prevent people from reaching truthful self-impressions. We also propose that researchers and practitioners should recognize self-assessment as a coherent and unified area of study spanning many subdisciplines of psychology and beyond. Finally, we suggest that policymakers and other people who makes real-world assessments should be wary of self-assessments of skill, expertise, and knowledge, and should consider ways of repairing self-assessments that may be flawed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x

Cites

324 of 324 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Learning about notions of quality through assessing peers' work may reduce the effect of cognitive biases directed towards the self when undertaking self-assessment.

    “Learning about notions of quality through assessing the work of peers may reduce the effect of cognitive biases directed towards the self when undertaking self-assessment (Dunning et al. 2004).”

    From Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work (2018) · cites this paper as Dunning et al. 2004

    The Peer Assessment and For Policymakers and Practitioners sections say peer assessment may improve students’ imperfect evaluations of their own work and improve self-evaluation accuracy. But the paper describes receiving peer feedback and benchmarking against others’ work; it does not establish that assessing peers’ work teaches notions of quality or specifically reduces self-directed cognitive biases. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Humans tend to leap to conclusions about themselves, others, and the world based on limited information and misperceptions about prior knowledge and experiences.

    “human beings do show a tendency to leap to conclusions about themselves, other people, and the world based on limited information and misperceptions about the extent and generalizability of prior knowledge and experiences (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004).”

    From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004

  • Feedback helps students make sense of their learning and compare their performance against a recognized standard.

    “Feedback helps students make sense of their learning and compare their performance against a recognized standard. 1-3”

    From Medical student perceptions of feedback and feedback behaviors within the context of the “educational alliance.” (2017) · cites this paper as [3]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Amler, R., Moriarty, D., & Hutchins, E. (Eds.). (1989). Healthier people. Decatur, GA: Carter Center of Emory University Health Risk Appraisal Program.
  2. Cambridge, R.M., & Shreckengost, R.C. (1980). Are you sure? The subjective probability assessment test. Unpublished manuscript, Office of Training, Central Intelligence Agency, Langley, VA.
  3. Cochrane, S.B., & Spears, M.C. (1980). Self-assessment and instructors' ratings: A comparison. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 76, 253-255.
  4. Crosby, R.A., & Yarber, W.L. (2001). Perceived versus actual knowledge about correct condom use among U.S. adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 415-420.
  5. Cusumano, M.A., & Selby, R.W. (1995). Microsoft secrets. New York: Free Press.
  6. Davis, D. (1985, March-April). New projects: Beware of false econo- mies. Harvard Business Review, 63, 95-101.
  7. Dunning, D. (in press). Prediction: The inside view. In A. Kruglanski & E. Higgins (Eds.), Basic principles in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
  8. Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2004). The mixed blessings of self-knowledge in behavioral prediction. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Uni- versity, Cambridge, MA.
  9. Heath, C., Larrick, R.P., & Klayman, J. (1998). Cognitive repairs: How organizational practices can compensate for individual shortcom- ings. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organi- zational behavior, Vol. 20 (pp. 1-37). Greenwood, NJ: JAI Press.
  10. Kim, Y.M., Putjuk, F., Kols, A., & Basuki, E. (2000). Improving provider- client communication: Reinforcing IPC/C training in Indonesia with self-assessment and peer review. Bethesda, MD: Quality As- surance Project.
  11. Leventhal, H., Meyer, D., & Nerenz, D. (1980). The common sense representation of illness danger. In S. Rachman (Ed.), Contribu- tions to medical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 7-30). New York: Pergamon.
  12. Loftus, E.F., & Wagenaar, W.A. (1988). Lawyers' predictions of success. Jurimetrics Journal, 29, 437-453.
  13. Mechanic, D. (1972). Social psychological factors affecting the pres- entation of bodily complaints. New England Journal of Medicine, 286, 1132-1139.
  14. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
  15. Sambell, K., & McDowell, L. (1997). The value of self-and peer assessment to the developing lifelong learner. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning-improving students as learners (pp. 56-66). Oxford, England: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
  16. Thiede, K.W. (1999). The importance of accurate monitoring and ef- fective self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 125-128.
  17. Windschitl, P.D., Kruger, J., & Simms, E. (2003). The influence of ego- centrism and focalism on people's optimism in competitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 389-408.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-12
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
69-106
ISSN
  • 1539-6053 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-1006
DOI
10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
OpenAlex
W2139736795
Cited by
1,865
References
310
Citations by year
2026: 107 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 113 · 2017: 98 · 2016: 102 · 2015: 111 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 82 · 2012: 90
FWCI
35.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Gothic.net (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9910592)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (RO1 56072)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
self-assessment, overconfidence, above-average effect, self-prediction, self-efficacy, health risk perception, self-diagnosis, student self-assessment, skill retention, massed practice, CEO overconfidence, management decision-making, feedback, self-knowledge, self-regulation, self-monitoring

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