Zell and Krizan (2014, this issue) provide a comprehensive yet incomplete portrait of the factors influencing accurate self-assessment. This is no fault of their own. Much work on self-accuracy focuses on the correlation coefficient as the measure of accuracy, but it is not the only way self-accuracy can be measured. As such, its use can provide an incomplete and potentially misleading story. We urge researchers to explore measures of bias as well as correlation, because there are indirect hints that each respond to a different psychological dynamic. We further entreat researchers to develop other creative measures of accuracy and not to forget that self-accuracy may come not only from personal knowledge but also from insight about human nature more generally.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalcetisE.DunningD. (2013). Considering the situation: Why people are better social psychologists than self-psychologists. Self and Identity, 12, 1–15.
2.
BrierG. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78, 1–3.
3.
CronbachL. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding others” and “assumed similarity.”Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
4.
DunningD. (2005). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
5.
DunningD. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. In OlsonJ.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247–296). New York, NY: Elsevier.
6.
DunningD.HeathC.SulsJ. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 71–106.
7.
EpleyN.DunningD. (2000). Feeling “holier than thou”: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self or social prediction?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 861–875.
8.
EpleyN.DunningD. (2006). The mixed blessings of self-knowledge in behavioral prediction: Enhanced discrimination but exacerbated bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 641–655.
9.
HayesA. F.DunningD. (1997). Construal processes and trait ambiguity: Implications for self-peer agreement in personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 664–677.
10.
HelzerE. G.DunningD. (2012). Why and when peer prediction is superior to self-prediction: The weight given to future aspiration versus past achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 38–53.
11.
KrugerJ. M.DunningD. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.
12.
LatanéB.DarleyJ. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
13.
LichtensteinS.FischhoffB. (1980). Training for calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 149–171.
14.
LichtensteinS.FischhoffB.PhillipsL. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–344). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15.
MacDonaldT. K.RossM. (1999). Assessing the accuracy of predictions about dating relationships: How and why do lovers’ predictions differ from those made by observers?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1417–1429.
16.
StoneE. R.OpelR. B. (2000). Training to improve calibration and discrimination: The effects of performance and environmental feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 282–309.
17.
VazireS. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300.
18.
VazireS.CarlsonE. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 104–108.
19.
YatesJ. F. (1982). External correspondence: Decompositions of the mean probability score. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 132–156.
20.
ZellE.KrizanZ. (2014). Do people have insight into their abilities? A meta-synthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 111–125.
