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

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 321 of the 321 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

321 of 321 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Amler R., 1989, Healthier people
  2. Bjork R.A., 1988, Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life, 396
  3. Brockett R.G., 1991, Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice
  4. Brody J.E., 1999, New York Times
  5. Cambridge R.M., 1980, Are you sure? The subjective probability assessment test
  6. Christensen P., 1996, Nordic Road and Transport Research, 8, 22
  7. College Board., 1976, Student descriptive questionnaire
  8. 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152 · DOI
  9. Cusumano M.A., 1995, Microsoft secrets
  10. Davis D., 1985, Harvard Business Review, 63, 95
  11. Duch B., 2001, The power of problem-based learning
  12. Dunbar K., 1995, The nature of insight, 365
  13. Dunning D., Basic principles in social psychology
  14. Epley N., 2004, The mixed blessings of self-knowledge in behavioral prediction
  15. Friedman M., 1959, Type A and your heart
  16. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.505 · DOI
  17. 10.1177/003151259407800331 · DOI
  18. Heath C., 1998, Research in organizational behavior, 20, 1
  19. Kahneman D., 1979, TIMS Studies in Management Science, 12, 313
  20. Kim Y.M., 2000, Improving provider-client communication: Reinforcing IPC/C training in Indonesia with self-assessment and peer review
  21. Koch A., 2001, Science Education, 75, 858
  22. Lennon S., 1995, Enhancing student learning through peer tutoring in higher education: Section 3—Implementing, 66
  23. Loftus E.F., 1988, Jurimetrics Journal, 29, 437
  24. Lovallo D., 2003, Harvard Business Review, 81, 56
  25. Malmendier U., 2003, Who makes acquisitions? A test of the overconfidence hypothesis
  26. Malmendier U., Journal of Finance
  27. Mintzberg H., 1975, Harvard Business Review, 53, 49
  28. Moore D.A., 2004, Strategic myopia and entrepreneurial entry: An experimental approach
  29. Oskamp S., 1965, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 261
  30. Porter M., 1980, Competitive strategy
  31. Risucci D.A., 1989, Surgical Gynecology and Obstetrics, 169, 519
  32. Sambell K., 1997, Improving student learning—improving students as learners, 56
  33. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1117 · DOI
  34. Stock M.F., 1983, Evaluation of safe performance secondary school driver education curriculum demonstration project: Final report
  35. Stuart M.R., 1980, Journal of Family Practice, 10, 639
  36. 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.489 · DOI
  37. Thiede K.W., 1999, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 125
  38. 10.3102/00346543068003249 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Van Boven L., 2004, The illusion of courage: Underestimating fear of embarrassment in public performance decisions
  40. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520210056032 · DOI
  41. 10.1037/0278-6133.14.2.132 · DOI
  42. Wilde G.J.S., 1998, Recovery, 9, 18

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,865

Related

See all

Metadata

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