The problem with confidence: too much and too little results in poorer achievement, inner conflict, and social inhibition.

Introduction: Confidence is defined as the feelings and thoughts people have during a task that result in judgments about their performance. Evidence suggests that confidence is trait-like, but thus far research on the relative match between confidence and accuracy has been primarily restricted to over-confidence effects, and subject to the methodological flaws involved with using difference scores. We sought to answer an exploratory question in this research, whether discrepancies in ability and confidence in either direction reliably predicted individual differences on a broad-spectrum and commercially available personality test, the California Psychological Inventory (CPI260). Methods: Participants were 220 employed adults who had previously taken the CPI260 for career development purposes. They were invited to complete a measure of cognitive ability and confidence in return for feedback on the same. Data were modeled using polynomial regression and response surface analysis, to determine whether and how CPI260 personality traits were associated with matches or mismatches between accuracy and confidence in the same test. Results: We identified negative curvilinear effects along the line of disagreement for four CPI260 scales, suggesting that both under- and over-confidence were associated with personality. Discussion: In contrast to our expectations, individuals who were under-confident and those who were over-confident had lower achievement potential, less social confidence, and more inner conflict than other individuals in this sample. Although preliminary, these findings suggest that both over-confident and under-confident individuals are aware of potential weaknesses that impede their functioning.

Ability-performance relationships in education and employment settings: critical tests of the more-is-better and the good-enough hypotheses.

The nature of the relationship between ability and performance is of critical importance for admission decisions in the context of higher education and for personnel selection. Although previous research has supported the more-is-better hypothesis by documenting linearity of ability-performance relationships, such research has not been sensitive enough to detect deviations at the top ends of the score distributions. An alternative position receiving considerable attention is the good-enough hypothesis, which suggests that although higher levels of ability may result in better performance up to a threshold, above this threshold greater ability does not translate to better performance. In this study, the nature of the relationship between cognitive ability and performance was examined throughout the score range in four large-scale data sets. Monotonicity was maintained in all instances. Contrary to the good-enough hypothesis, the ability-performance relationship was commonly stronger at the top end of the score distribution than at the bottom end.

Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admissions tests and post-secondary academic performance?

Critics of educational admissions tests assert that tests measure nothing more than socioeconomic status (SES) and that their apparent validity in predicting academic performance is an artifact of SES. The authors examined multiple large data sets containing data on admissions and related tests, SES, and grades showing that (a) SES is related to test scores (r = .42 among the population of SAT takers), (b) test scores are predictive of academic performance, and (c) statistically controlling for SES reduces the estimated test?grade correlation from r = .47 to r = .44. Thus, the vast majority of the test?academic performance relationship was independent of SES: The authors concluded that the test?grade relationship is not an artifact of common influences of SES on both test scores and grades.