Harder Than You Think: How Outside Assistance Leads to Overconfidence
Abstract
Cognitive ability consists not only of one’s internal competence but also of the augmentation offered by the outside world. How much of our cognitive success is due to our own abilities, and how much is due to external support? Can we accurately draw that distinction? Here, we explored when and why people are unaware of their reliance on outside assistance. Across eight experiments ( N = 2,440 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk), people showed improved metacognitive calibration when assistance occurred after a delay or required active choice. Furthermore, these findings apply across a wide range of cognitive tasks, including semantic memory (Experiments 1a and 1b), episodic memory (Experiments 2a and 2b), and problem solving (Experiments 3a–3d). These experiments offer important insights into how we understand our own abilities when we rely on outside help.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
People overestimate their task performance if web-based information is available.
“Similarly, Flanagin and Lew (2023) found that people overestimate their task performance if web-based information is available (see also Fisher & Oppenheimer, 2021).”
From The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization (2023) · cites this paper as Fisher & Oppenheimer, 2021
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Fisher, M., & Oppenheimer, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Southern Methodist University (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fisher, Matthew
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-03-17
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 598-610
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W3137578113
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- overconfidence, metacognitive calibration, metacognition, self-assessment of ability, semantic memory, episodic memory, problem solving, cognitive enhancement, self-knowledge
- MeSH terms
- Metacognition, Humans, Memory
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