Dunning-Kruger effect and its
influence on the adoption of
reforms
At first it is important to say what the Dunning-Kruger
effect is. This phenomenon was first described in 1999
by two psychologists, David Dunning and Justin Kruger.
They were brought to explore this phenomenon by an
incident, where a robber robbed a bank, without any
masking, because believed that if he is smeared with
lemon juice, the cameras would not register him. A
similar case happened recently, where a robber, that
with the help of a spell, believed, that he is invisible
and stood near a ATM and took money out of people’s
hands, as if nothing had happened. Here is an
interesting significant discrepancy between one’s idea
about its capabilities and its actual capabilities. These
are two extreme cases, but a similar phenomenon
occurs in all areas.
Dunning-Kruger effect
Dunning and Kruger made a series of
empirical tests, in which they used students as
volunteers and tested their ability in different
areas, such as logic, grammar, but also social
interaction. After that the participants were
subsequently ordered from the least capable
to most capable. Then they asked each one to
evaluate their results.
Dunning-Kruger effect- Graph 1
The
achieved results
12
10
8
results
6
Self-assessment
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
participants
10
Dunning-Kruger effect
As you can see, people in the lowest quartile, ie
those least capable significantly overestimate
their results. On the other hand those most
capable conversely underestimate their abilities.
Dunning and Kruger made one another sub
experiment, in which they took the participants
from the lowest and highest quartile and
familiarize them with the results of the others
and gave them the chance to revise their own
score.
Dunning-Kruger effect- Graph 2
12
The achieved results
10
8
6
results
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
participants
Self-assessment
As you can se, the most capable participants revised their selfevaluation and came closer to the actual results, while the
least capable did not change their self-evaluation.
From the findings we can conclude the following:
• Due to their incapability are the less capable not able to
achieve better results
• Due to their incapability they are not able to realize their own
incapability and so have the tendency to blame external
factors for their failures (The boss pick on me, I had bad
luck...etc.)
• Since their not able to indentify the main cause of failures,
their incapability, they can not eliminate their mistakes and
improve their results and therefore achieve long-term bad
results.
Dunning-Kruger effect
We do not talk about intelligence, but about
incapability. Although less intelligent are being
far more incapable. Even the very intelligent
people can in certain areas have very little
knowledge and abilities and for that they are
in the given area incapable and so be liable to
the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Influence the adoption of reforms.
However, how does the Dunning-Kruger effect
reflect in adoptions of reforms? The main
problem is that the adoption and realization
of reforms subjects to public choice, so they
are brought to practice by people, who are
not sufficient experts and therefore do not
have the appropriate skills and manifest
themselves the consequences of the DunningKruger effect, especially in the these areas:
Influence the adoption of reforms.
The first problem is that the compiling of needed
reforms is a matter of political agendas. Although
the agendas are using the views and
recommendations of experts from certain area,
but there is no guarantee that the politicians who
do not have the necessary skills in this area,
properly realize what the nature of things is,
understand the recommendations formulated by
the experts. And when it comes to a wrong
interpretation, this interpretation will be
discovered, see point 2 of D-K effect.
Influence the adoption of reforms.
The second case where the D-K effect
manifests itself is in the enforcement of
reforms is their interpretation. The
interpretation of reforms and their
presentation to the professional and lay public
make the political parties, who may not
necessarily have the required capabilities to
completely understand the reforms, which
may lead to misinterpretation.
Influence the adoption of reforms.
The last factor is the understanding of reforms by
those, who involve these reforms. An ordinary
citizen does not have sufficient capabilities for a
quality assessment of submitted reforms, and
therefore can not consider well the benefits of
the reforms, whether positive or negative. An
ordinary citizen, when he decides well, has the
feeling that he was deceived, or used and resigns
from an active participation in the public
decision-making. Stop following the policy and
going to the polls, which even more reduces his
ability and thereby increases his suggestibility.
Influence the adoption of reforms.
These above-mentioned manifestations of the
D-K effect are used by groups based on mutual
protection and violations in general valid
principles in order to master the system and
influenced the reforms right from the very
beginning, after the adoption by ordinary
citizens. Thanks to this they can influence the
reforms enough to enforce their own interests
and thus increase their payouts at the expense
of the performance of the whole system.
Thank you for your
attention.