The Dunning-Kruger effect revisited.

@article{Mazor2021TheDE,
  title={The Dunning-Kruger effect revisited.},
  author={Matan Mazor and Stephen M. Fleming},
  journal={Nature human behaviour},
  year={2021}
}
In one of the most highly replicable findings in social psychology, Kruger and Dunning1 showed that participants who performed worse in tests of humour, reasoning, and grammar were also more likely to overestimate their performance. In their original report, Kruger and Dunning interpreted this overconfidence in the self-reports of low performers as a metacognitive deficiency, such that poor performers suffer a ‘dual burden’: in addition to their incompetence in the task, they are unable to… 
2 Citations
Measuring metacognitive performance: type 1 performance dependence and test-retest reliability
TLDR
This work scrutinizes the most popular metacognition performance measures in terms of two critical characteristics: independence of type 1 performance and test-retest reliability and concludes that no current metacognitive performance measure is independent oftype 1 performance.
Going around in circles. Is there a continuing need to use the T‐piece circuit in the practice of pediatric anesthesia?
TLDR
This pro‐con debate discusses whether there remains a case for continuing to use the T‐piece circuit in preference over other options with respect to pediatric anesthetic practice.

References

SHOWING 1-9 OF 9 REFERENCES
A rational model of the Dunning-Kruger effect supports insensitivity to evidence in low performers.
TLDR
Comparing the predictions of two variants of the rational model provides support for low performers being less able to estimate whether they are correct in the domains of grammar and logical reasoning.
Wise up: Clarifying the role of metacognition in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
TLDR
A simple model is presented, showing that metacognitive differences can contribute to the DKE but are neither necessary nor sufficient for it, and clarifies and quantifies how metac cognitive insight and other factors interact to determine this famous effect.
Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance.
TLDR
High rather than low performers were more error prone in that they were more likely to neglect their own estimates of the performance of others when predicting how they themselves performed relative to the group.
Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: how perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons.
TLDR
It is proposed that a noise-plus-bias model of judgment is sufficient to explain the relation between skill level and accuracy of judgments of relative standing, and that judges at all skill levels are subject to similar degrees of error.
Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
TLDR
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability.
Measures of relative metacognitive accuracy are confounded with task performance in tasks that permit guessing
This article investigates the concern that assessment of metacognitive resolution (or relative accuracy—often evaluated by gamma correlations or signal detection theoretic measures such as d a ) is
How to measure metacognition
TLDR
Other measures based on signal detection theory and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis that are “bias free,” are reviewed, and these quantities are related to the calibration and discrimination measures developed in the probability estimation literature.
Self-Evaluation of Decision-Making: A General Bayesian Framework for Metacognitive Computation
TLDR
A general Bayesian framework in which self-evaluation is cast as a “second-order” inference on a coupled but distinct decision system, computationally equivalent to inferring the performance of another actor is presented.
Competing interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Nature HumaN BeHaviour | www.nature.com/nathumbehav
  • Soc. Psychol
  • 2002