Still no Dunning-Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller

Gilles E. Gignac; Marcin Zajenkowski

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733

Still no Dunning-Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller

Gilles E. Gignac, Marcin Zajenkowski

School of Psychological Science

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The primary criticism raised by Hiller (2023) pertained to the transformation of the self-assessed intelligence (SAI) scores applied by Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020), an investigation that suggested the Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE) may be primarily a statistical artefact. Hiller recommended an alternative transformation. Our re-analysis of Gignac and Zajenkowski's data with Hiller's recommended transformation failed to find evidence in favour of the DK hypothesis. Hiller also recommended SAI measurement with a percentile-based approach. Based on a review of the literature, one investigation has employed a percentile-based approach to SAI measurement, and it largely failed to support the DK hypothesis, when analysed with the non-linear regression approach recommended by Gignac and Zajenkowski. We conclude by encouraging researchers to continue to derive novel approaches to testing the DK hypothesis, especially approaches that overcome known methodological challenges.

Original language	English
Article number	101733
Journal	Intelligence
Volume	97
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733
Publication status	Published - 1 Mar 2023

Access to Document

10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733

Cite this

@article{8122348091ae4c5c88b3a7be2deaba4f,

title = "Still no Dunning-Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller",

abstract = "The primary criticism raised by Hiller (2023) pertained to the transformation of the self-assessed intelligence (SAI) scores applied by Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020), an investigation that suggested the Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE) may be primarily a statistical artefact. Hiller recommended an alternative transformation. Our re-analysis of Gignac and Zajenkowski's data with Hiller's recommended transformation failed to find evidence in favour of the DK hypothesis. Hiller also recommended SAI measurement with a percentile-based approach. Based on a review of the literature, one investigation has employed a percentile-based approach to SAI measurement, and it largely failed to support the DK hypothesis, when analysed with the non-linear regression approach recommended by Gignac and Zajenkowski. We conclude by encouraging researchers to continue to derive novel approaches to testing the DK hypothesis, especially approaches that overcome known methodological challenges.",

keywords = "Dunning-kruger effect, Intelligence, Psychometrics, Self-assessed intelligence",

author = "Gignac, {Gilles E.} and Marcin Zajenkowski",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2023",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733",

language = "English",

volume = "97",

journal = "Intelligence",

issn = "0160-2896",

publisher = "Academic Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Still no Dunning-Kruger effect

T2 - A reply to Hiller

AU - Gignac, Gilles E.

AU - Zajenkowski, Marcin

PY - 2023/3/1

Y1 - 2023/3/1

N2 - The primary criticism raised by Hiller (2023) pertained to the transformation of the self-assessed intelligence (SAI) scores applied by Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020), an investigation that suggested the Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE) may be primarily a statistical artefact. Hiller recommended an alternative transformation. Our re-analysis of Gignac and Zajenkowski's data with Hiller's recommended transformation failed to find evidence in favour of the DK hypothesis. Hiller also recommended SAI measurement with a percentile-based approach. Based on a review of the literature, one investigation has employed a percentile-based approach to SAI measurement, and it largely failed to support the DK hypothesis, when analysed with the non-linear regression approach recommended by Gignac and Zajenkowski. We conclude by encouraging researchers to continue to derive novel approaches to testing the DK hypothesis, especially approaches that overcome known methodological challenges.

AB - The primary criticism raised by Hiller (2023) pertained to the transformation of the self-assessed intelligence (SAI) scores applied by Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020), an investigation that suggested the Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE) may be primarily a statistical artefact. Hiller recommended an alternative transformation. Our re-analysis of Gignac and Zajenkowski's data with Hiller's recommended transformation failed to find evidence in favour of the DK hypothesis. Hiller also recommended SAI measurement with a percentile-based approach. Based on a review of the literature, one investigation has employed a percentile-based approach to SAI measurement, and it largely failed to support the DK hypothesis, when analysed with the non-linear regression approach recommended by Gignac and Zajenkowski. We conclude by encouraging researchers to continue to derive novel approaches to testing the DK hypothesis, especially approaches that overcome known methodological challenges.

KW - Dunning-kruger effect

KW - Intelligence

KW - Psychometrics

KW - Self-assessed intelligence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149375764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733

DO - 10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85149375764

SN - 0160-2896

VL - 97

JO - Intelligence

JF - Intelligence

M1 - 101733

ER -

Still no Dunning-Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this