ARE YOU AS SMART AND CREATIVE AS YOU THINK ARE YOU AS SMART AND CREATIVE AS YOU THINK? AN EXAMINATION OF SELF-ASSESSMENT VALIDITY IN INTELLIGENCE AND CREATIVITY Edward A. Johnson & Darren Neufeld, University of Manitoba, Canada. Results Introduction Results Self-Assessment: Why so poor? Self-assessment may be defined as the ability to accurately assess the extent of one’s ability or knowledge in a given domain. Accurate self-assessment clarifies the limits of one’s competence, knowledge of which is essential to professional self-regulation (Belar et al., 2001). However, prior research indicates that self-assessment is a complex task and that individuals possess limited or non-existent accuracy when self-assessments are compared with objective measures of skill or knowledge (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004). Accordingly, research is needed to better understand the factors that influence self-assessments and how self-assessment accuracy may be enhanced. Research Questions To answer the following self-assessment was compared with objective measures of intelligence and creativity. Do predictions of intelligence and creativity agree with actual performance? Do predictions improve after taking the test? Does non-defensiveness contribute to improved accuracy? Do test predictions make good use of domain-relevant facets of valid self-knowledge? Table 1. Accuracy of self-assessments of performance (# correct) on Wonderlic intelligence test taken before and after testing. Table 4. Predictors of performance (# creative responses) on uses of a brick test. IV Beta Zero-order r Pre-test estimate -.058 .12 Post-test estimate .252** .24*** Self-rated trait openness, complexity .010 .03 Self-rated conventional uncreative .040 .10 Self-rated unconventional thinker .080 .15* Rank value broadminded -.040 -.11 Rank value creative -.069 -.14* OCQ accuracy .128* .13* OCQ bias .033 .07 Intelligence Mean SD Low High Performance 23.11 6.37 8 44 Pre-test estimate 23.67 5.87 6 45 Post-test estimate 23.10 6.32 9 42 Pre-test bias .57 8.28 -17 28 Post-test bias -.11 6.06 -18 20 Pre-test deviation 6.35*** 5.33 Post-test deviation 4.70*** 3.81 F(9, 233) = 2.86, p = .003; adjusted R2 = .07 Method Table 5. Betas for predictors of worsened accuracy of estimating performance from pre- to post-test. Table 2. Accuracy of self-assessments of performance (# creative responses) on uses of a brick creativity test taken before and after testing. Participants 258 Introductory Psychology Students participating for course credit Measures Intelligence Wonderlic Personnel Test Revised – 50 varied intelligence test problems in 12 minutes Pre and post-test estimates of # correct Bias (Estimate minus Actual) – positive values indicate overconfidence, negative underconfidence Deviation (Absolute value of bias) – larger values indicate greater error Trait ratings of intelligence, math skills, verbal skills Rank order of values (including knowledge, logic) General knowledge (OCQ accuracy) Creativity Uses of a Brick test - involves listing as many creative uses as one can think of for a brick in one minute (e.g., as a drum), avoiding mundane (e.g., for building) or impossible (e.g., for a kite) uses. Actual number of creative responses evaluated by trained judges. Pre- and post-test measures Bias (Estimate – Actual) Deviation (Absolute value of bias) Trait ratings of creativity, conventionality Rank order of values (including creativity, broadmindedness) Personality Self-enhancement (NPI, PNI, SDE, OCQbias, PRF items - “arrogant”, “exaggerates skill”) Self-acceptance (Self-Compassion; Neff 2003) IV Intelligence Creativity Narcissistic Personality (NPI) -.059 -.053 Narcissistic Personality (PNI) -.045 .110 Self-Deceptive Enhancement .013 .038 Arrogant -.154* .172* Exaggerates skills -.036 -.056 Self-Compassion -.070 .140 Conventional, uncreative .111 .221* Self-rated intelligence .041 -.055 Self-rated creativity .123 -.116 OCQ accuracy .152* -.005 OCQ bias -.013 .051 Total R2 .128** .057 Creativity Mean SD Low High Performance 1.10 1.11 6 Pre-test estimate 4.75 2.17 13 Post-test estimate 2.66 2.07 9 Pre-test bias 3.64*** 2.32 -2 11 Post-test bias 1.55*** 2.09 -3 7 Pre-test deviation 3.71*** 2.19 Post-test deviation 1.93*** 1.75 * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001; There was no evidence of bias in predicted performance on the Wonderlic, but the absolute deviation of predictions from performance was significant. In contrast, predictions of creative performance were significantly biased towards overconfidence and showed significant deviations from actual performance at pre- and post-test (Tables 1 & 2). This difference may reflect the ill-defined nature of the creativity task and its lack of norms. Accuracy of self-assessment improved in post-tests relative to pre-tests for both intelligence and creativity (Tables 1 & 2). This indicates people can use their experience to enhance their self-assessments. Table 5 shows that defensiveness (narcissism, SDE) did not predict worsened accuracy. Rather, for intelligence, those whose accuracy worsened from pre- to post-test see themselves as less arrogant and demonstrated greater general knowledge. For creativity estimates, however, worsened accuracy at post-test reflected greater self-reported arrogance and uncreativeness. The fact that self-rated math and verbal skills as well as the value placed on logic contributed unique variance to the prediction of intelligence test performance beyond self-assessment (Table 3) suggests that estimates of performance do not capitalize fully on all of one’s valid self-knowledge. This appears to be less true for creativity (Table 4) where unique predictors did not emerge. Table 3. Predictors of performance (# correct) on Wonderlic intelligence test. Discussion: Answers to Research Questions IV Beta Zero-order r Pre-test estimate -.118* .06 Post-test estimate .421*** .55*** Self-rated trait intelligence -.03 .24*** Self-rated math skills .264*** .40*** Self-rated verbal skills .106* .20** Rank value knowledgeable .012 -.22*** Rank value logical -.200*** -.32*** OCQ accuracy .199*** .38*** OCQ bias -.032 .05 Procedure Phase 1. Participants completed trait measures of personality online via Qualtrics software. Phase 2. Participants were tested in a classroom in groups of 10-20. They completed objective measures of intelligence and creativity under timed conditions. Before and after taking these tests, participants were asked to estimate their performance. F(9, 245) = 24.99, p < .001; adjusted R2 = .46 This research was supported by funds from SSHRC to Ed Johnson