Dunning-Kruger effect

From Kruger and Dunning (1999); low performers tended to overestimate their ability in the original study. Later re-analyses (for example Gignac and Zajenkowski, 2020) argue much of the pattern reflects statistical artifact (regression to the mean) and a general better-than-average tendency rather than a unique deficit. The defensible lesson is the narrower one: self-rating is a weak substitute for task-specific measurement, in both directions.

A pattern documented by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in a 1999 study, in which people with lower skill in a domain tend to overestimate their own performance and rank, because the same knowledge and skill needed to perform well in a domain is also needed to accurately judge performance in that domain.

The documented pattern in which people with the least competence in a domain tend to overestimate it the most, because the knowledge required to perform is the same knowledge required to judge one's own performance (Kruger and Dunning, 1999). The reason self-assessment fails for skill gaps.

A cognitive bias where people with moderate skill in an area overestimate their proficiency, while highly skilled people tend to rate themselves more accurately. In digital readiness, this bias causes many professionals to skip foundational training they actually need.