The Capability to Align Estimated Performance with Actual Performance: Insights from Physical ...

159 Pages·2015·10.63 MB·English

by  Tate Hubka

Copyright and use of this thesis
This thesis must be used in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
Reproduction of material protected by copyright
may be an infringement of copyright and
copyright owners may be entitled to take
legal action against persons who infringe their
copyright.
Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits
an authorized officer of a university library or
archives to provide a copy (by communication
or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in
the library or archives, to a person who satisfies
the authorized officer that he or she requires
the reproduction for the purposes of research
or study.
The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work
a number of moral rights, specifically the right of
attribution, the right against false attribution and
the right of integrity.
You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you:
- fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if
you quote sections from the work
- attribute this thesis to another author
- subject this thesis to derogatory treatment
which may prejudice the author’s reputation
For further information contact the University’s
Director of Copyright Services
sydney.edu.au/copyright
The Capability to Align Estimated Performance with Actual
Performance: Insights from Physical & Cognitive Performance
Contexts

Tate Nolan Hubka
B.Sc. Exercise Science

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Applied Science

Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science
Faculty of Health Science
The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

June 2015
Declaration of Originality/Authorship
I, Tate Hubka, hereby declare that the Masters by Research thesis entitled ‘The
Capability to Align Estimated Performance with Actual Performance: Insights from Physical
& Cognitive Performance Contexts’ is no more than 60,000 words in length including quotes
and exclusive of tables, figures, appendices, references, and footnotes. This thesis contains no
material that has been submitted previously, in whole or in part, for the award of any other
academic degree or diploma. This thesis contains material that has been submitted for
publication in peer-reviewed journals. This thesis is entirely my own work, and except where
due acknowledgement is made, no other person’s work has been used.

Tate Hubka

Date: June 1st, 2015
i
Abstract

Discrepancies between estimated and actual performance occur daily in both
normative and performance based tasks. This is synonymous with a type of cognitive bias
known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE). In this thesis, Chapter 2 examined the existing
literature on estimation and performance alignment and DKEs using systematic and meta-
analytical procedures. Findings identified a small-moderate correlation in the ability to align
estimation with actual performance. In DKE terms, quartile 1 performers overestimated,
while quartile 4 underestimated. Alignment correlations were also found to be moderated by
methodological and task factors, but not participant characteristics.
Chapter 3 assessed DKE prevalence and whether sporting experience, the time point
of estimation, and reference group moderated trends in the physical tasks of Sprint and
Vertical Jump. Notwithstanding DKE presence, trends were affected by time point of
estimation. Estimation error was not related to current or previous sporting experience in
either task.
Chapter 4 examined DKEs in the cognitive contexts of the Stroop and Tower of
Hanoi tasks, and assessed whether estimation error was moderated by time point of
estimation, reference group, task difficulty, feedback, and efficacy. For both tasks, pre-task
efficacy predicted estimation error, and time point of estimation affected estimation, with
increases and decreases post-task in the Stroop and Tower of Hanoi respectively.
Together, findings highlight DKE prevalence in multiple task contexts. DKE trends
were moderated by task and methodological characteristics. Underlying mechanisms appear
to implicate metacognitive skill as well as chronic-self views and pre-task efficacy.
Increasing metacognitive skill and performance feedback is identified as a key strategy for
error prevention and mitigation. Identifying DKE consequences and interventions that
improve estimation-performance alignment are important future directions.

Keywords: Perceived Performance, Actual Performance, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Meta-
Analysis, Self-Assessment, Metacognition
ii
Preface
All of the work presented henceforth was conducted at the University of Sydney,
Cumberland campus. The University of Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Board approved
all projects and associated methods.
Acknowledgments
This thesis is the culmination of my research as conducted from March 2013 to
February 2015. Although this thesis details the research design, data collection, data analysis,
and interpretation of my research, it by no means adequately summarizes the degree of effort,
work, or assistance I received throughout my Masters degree, nor which went into this body
of work. Therefore, I would like to specifically acknowledge those whose assistance has
allowed me to reach this far.
I would like to primarily thank my supervisor: Steve Cobley, for his constant
assistance, encouragement, and patience. Due to this, I was able to involve myself in teaching
undergraduate courses, and additional research collaborations. These tasks increased my
passion and enjoyment of academia, from which I intend to continue into a PhD. I would also
like to acknowledge the assistance provided by my supervisors Roger Adams, who provided
help with understanding the complexities of statistics, and Donna O’Connor, who provided
assistance with research dissemination, as well as providing additional research experience.
Additionally, I would like to acknowledge (in no particular order), Cristian Alegria,
Fiona Pearson, Vindy Jayewardene, Matt Hoon, Allyson Attenborough, Helen Parker, Cloe
Cummins, Scott Michael, Alycia Fong Yan, Tim English, Nate Morris, Shelley Davison,
Claire Tompsett, and Caitlin Taylor. They made my stay at the University of Sydney very
enjoyable. Finally I would like to thank Kritika Rao, for her support and encouragement for
as long as I have known her.
To all of you, and any I may have forgotten: Thank you, very, very, much.
iii
Table of Contents
Declaration of Originality/Authorship ......................................................................................... i!
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii!
Preface ....................................................................................................................................... iii!
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................... iii!
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... iv!
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix!
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. x!
Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1!
1.1 Research Focus ..................................................................................................................... 1!
1.2 Research Background ........................................................................................................... 3!
1.3 Research Perspective ............................................................................................................ 4!
1.4 Research Aims ...................................................................................................................... 5!
1.5 Research Significance ........................................................................................................... 6!
Chapter 2 – The Capability to Match Estimated Performance with Actual Performance:
A Meta-Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 8!
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 8!
2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 9!
2.0.1 Research inconsistencies ............................................................................................. 10!
2.0.2 Additional explanations .............................................................................................. 11!
2.0.3 Meta-analysis purpose ................................................................................................ 12!
2.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 13!
2.1.1 Systematic search ........................................................................................................ 13!
2.1.2 Inclusion criteria ......................................................................................................... 13!
2.1.3 Data extraction ............................................................................................................ 14!
2.1.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 16!
2.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 19!
2.2.1 Systematic search ........................................................................................................ 19!
2.2.2 Meta-analysis .............................................................................................................. 26!
2.2.2.1 Overall ................................................................................................................. 26!
2.2.2.2 Correlation moderator analyses ........................................................................... 30!
iv
2.2.2.3 Mean difference moderator analyses .................................................................. 31!
2.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 32!
2.3.1 Meta-analysis findings ................................................................................................ 32!
2.3.2. Findings from systematic reviewing .......................................................................... 36!
2.3.2.1 Psycho-social characteristics ............................................................................... 36!
2.3.2.2 Consequences ...................................................................................................... 37!
2.3.2.3 Interventions ........................................................................................................ 38!
2.3.3 Recommendations and future directions ..................................................................... 39!
2.3.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 39!
Chapter 2 - 3 Bridging Statement ......................................................................................... 41!
Chapter 3 – The Capability to Align Estimated and Actual Performance: The Dunning-
Kruger Effect is Evident in Physical Task Contexts ........................................................... 43!
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 43!
3.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 44!
3.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 46!
3.1.1 Participants .................................................................................................................. 46!
3.1.2 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 46!
3.1.2.1 60m Sprint ........................................................................................................... 47!
3.1.2.2 Vertical Jump ...................................................................................................... 47!
3.1.2.3 Task estimation ................................................................................................... 47!
3.1.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 48!
3.1.3.1 Overall estimation alignment .............................................................................. 48!
3.1.3.2 Estimation-performance difference ..................................................................... 50!
3.1.3.3 Estimation-performance error ............................................................................. 50!
3.1.3.4 Estimation moderation ........................................................................................ 50!
3.1.3.5 Task experience ................................................................................................... 51!
3.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 51!
3.2.1 60m Sprint ................................................................................................................... 51!
3.2.1.1 Overall estimation alignment .............................................................................. 51!
3.2.1.2 Estimation-performance difference ..................................................................... 52!
3.2.1.3 Estimation-performance error ............................................................................. 52!
3.2.1.4 Estimation moderation ........................................................................................ 52!
v
3.2.1.5 Task experience ................................................................................................... 57!
3.2.2 Vertical Jump .............................................................................................................. 57!
3.2.2.1 Overall estimation alignment .............................................................................. 57!
3.2.2.2 Estimation-performance difference ..................................................................... 58!
3.2.2.3 Estimation-performance error ............................................................................. 58!
3.2.2.4 Estimation moderation ........................................................................................ 58!
3.2.2.5 Task experience ................................................................................................... 60!
3.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 60!
Chapter 3 - 4 Bridging Statement ......................................................................................... 65!
Chapter 4 – The Dunning-Kruger Effect in Cognitive Performance Contexts ................ 67!
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 67!
4.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 68!
4.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 72!
4.1.1 Participants .................................................................................................................. 72!
4.1.2 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 72!
4.1.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 75!
4.1.3.1 Overall estimation alignment .............................................................................. 75!
4.1.3.2 Estimation-performance error ............................................................................. 75!
4.1.3.3 Estimation moderation ........................................................................................ 76!
4.1.3.4 Task efficacy ....................................................................................................... 77!
4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 77!
4.2.1 Stroop .......................................................................................................................... 77!
4.2.1.1 Overall estimation alignment .............................................................................. 77!
4.2.1.2 Estimation-performance error ............................................................................. 80!
4.2.1.3 Estimation moderation ........................................................................................ 80!
4.2.1.4 Task efficacy ....................................................................................................... 82!
4.2.2 Tower of Hanoi ........................................................................................................... 82!
4.2.2.1 Overall estimation alignment .............................................................................. 82!
4.2.2.2 Estimation-performance error ............................................................................. 85!
4.2.2.3 Estimation moderation ........................................................................................ 85!
4.2.2.4 Task efficacy ....................................................................................................... 86!
4.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 88!
vi
4.3.1 Stroop .......................................................................................................................... 88!
4.3.2 Tower of Hanoi ........................................................................................................... 90!
4.3.3 Implications and recommendations ............................................................................ 92!
Chapter 5 – A Discussion of Dunning-Kruger Effect Studies in Physical and Cognitive
Contexts ................................................................................................................................... 94!
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 94!
5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 95!
5.1 Study Summary .................................................................................................................. 95!
5.2 Analysis of findings ............................................................................................................ 97!
5.2.1 Egocentrism ................................................................................................................ 98!
5.2.2 Task efficacy ............................................................................................................... 99!
5.2.3 Chronic self-views .................................................................................................... 100!
5.2.4 Task specific skill ..................................................................................................... 101!
5.2.5 Metacognition ........................................................................................................... 102!
5.3 Statement of Originality ................................................................................................... 103!
5.4 Implications ...................................................................................................................... 104!
5.5 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 106!
5.6 Future Directions .............................................................................................................. 107!
Chapter 6 - Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 109!
References .............................................................................................................................. 111!
Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 126!
Appendix A – PRISMA Checklist .......................................................................................... 126!
Appendix B – Example list of excluded studies ..................................................................... 128!
Appendix C – Human Research Ethics Committee Approval ............................................... 130!
Appendix D – Study Advertisement ....................................................................................... 132!
Appendix E – Participant Information Statement/Consent Form ........................................... 133!
Appendix F – Pre-Study Questionnaire .................................................................................. 138!
Appendix G – Pre and Post Task Questionnaires ................................................................... 139!
Appendix H – Data Collection Sheet ..................................................................................... 145!
Appendix I – Participant Debrief ............................................................................................ 146!
vii
Appendix J – Summary of Masters Candidature Contribution .............................................. 147!
viii