Inflated confidence may not give children a learning advantage after all

edited by Gaby Clark , reviewed by Andrew Zinin

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

Add as preferred source Young children often overestimate what they can do. That overconfidence may help them approach challenges without fear, but it can also get them into trouble. Children who overestimate their physical abilities, for example, may take risks that make accidental injuries more likely.

Previous research has suggested that overconfidence may also help children learn. Believing they can succeed, the theory goes, might encourage them to persist longer at difficult tasks and eventually see performance improvements.

New research, however, suggests that this apparent learning advantage may be a statistical illusion. In a study published in Psychological Science , a team led by researchers at Beijing Normal University found that the reported benefit could be explained by how children were sorted into groups and by a common statistical pattern called regression to the mean. When the researchers experimentally increased or decreased children's confidence, they found no difference in performance changes between the two groups.

"Parents and educators should be cautious about assuming that inflated confidence will improve children's learning," said lead author Mengqi Hu of Beijing Normal University. "Encouraging children to believe they are more capable than they actually are may create positive feelings, but our results indicate that such illusory beliefs do not necessarily translate into better performance."

The idea that overconfidence might aid learning gained traction after a 2007 study found that highly overconfident children showed more favorable performance changes during a memory task . Children predicted how many words they would remember before studying and recalling each list. Although most overestimated their recall, those classified as highly overconfident appeared to improve more, or decline less, than their less-overconfident peers. The researchers suggested that inflated confidence might promote persistence and engagement, making it potentially adaptive.

Despite being widely cited, the 2007 study's findings have never been replicated. Hu and her colleagues set out to replicate the earlier findings and determine whether overconfidence actually causes children's performance to improve. Their investigation unfolded in three stages.

First, the researchers replicated the 2007 study with 30 children ages 6 to 8. On the surface, the highly overconfident group appeared to fare better, showing a smaller decline in recall than the less-overconfident group.

But a closer look showed that the apparent advantage did not reflect better learning. Instead, it arose from differences between the groups at the start of the task.

"The highly overconfident group started with lower recall, whereas the two groups did not differ in their later recall performance," Hu said.

That pattern raised a critical question: Could the original study's methods make overconfidence appear beneficial even when it had no effect on learning?

To find out, the researchers turned to computer simulations. They created four models, each simulating data from 1,000 children under different assumptions. In one model, overconfidence had no effect on learning. Even so, when the researchers analyzed the simulated data using the 2007 study's methods, the apparent advantage reappeared. The simulation showed that the analysis itself could create the impression that overconfidence helped children learn.

The simulations demonstrated how the apparent advantage could arise, but they did not establish whether overconfidence itself affected performance. To test that question experimentally, the researchers randomly assigned 64 children to receive feedback intended to make them more or less overconfident. The children wore what they were told was an EEG-based device for assessing their memory. Before each task, half were falsely told that the assessment showed they had excellent memory; the others were told that their memory was poor.

The feedback successfully changed the children's confidence, but it did not change how their recall changed over the course of the task. The two groups performed similarly. Yet when the researchers analyzed the results using the 2007 study's grouping method, the apparent advantage of overconfidence returned.

The researchers found that the problem lies in how children were assigned to the groups. They measured overconfidence by subtracting a child's actual recall score from the number of words the child predicted they would remember. As a result, children with unusually low initial recall scores were more likely to be classified as highly overconfident. Those with unusually high scores were more likely to be classified as less overconfident.

The researchers then used those same initial recall scores to measure how much the children's performance changed. But unusually low or high scores often move closer to the average when measured again, simply because of natural variation. This pattern, known as regression to the mean, made children who started with low scores appear to improve more, or decline less, even when overconfidence had no effect.

"Taken together, these findings suggest that the previously reported learning advantage reflected a methodological artifact rather than a genuine benefit of childhood overconfidence," Hu said.

She emphasized, however, that the findings do not diminish the value of optimism or encouragement.

"The key is to distinguish supportive encouragement from exaggerating a child's competence," she said. "In practice, feedback may be more useful when it is grounded in children's actual effort, strategies and progress, while also helping them recognize where improvement is needed."

Mengqi Hu et al, Does Overconfidence Really ...

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Phys.org. Open at source →