Appeal to Authority, you probably know, is when someone uses credentials, titles, or educational background -- and no other evidence -- to support a claim. Put simply, it is the idea that if Stephen Hawking said it, it must be true, regardless of whether the claim has anything to do with Hawking's particular area of expertise. The Dunning-Kruger Effect, on the other hand, is the idea that people tend to wildly overestimate their abilities, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, which is why we all think we're above average drivers.
Well, David Dunning (of the aforementioned Dunning-Kruger Effect) has teamed up with Cornell University researchers Stav Atir and Emily Rosenzweig, and come up with the love child of Dunning-Kruger and Appeal to Authority. And what this new phenomenon -- dubbed, predictably, the Atir-Rosenzweig-Dunning Effect -- shows us is that people who are experts in a particular field tend to think that expertise holds true even for disciplines far outside their chosen area of study.
[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]
The test subjects who had the highest confidence level in their own fields were most likely to get suckered. Simon Oxenham, who described the experiments in Big Think, says it's only natural. "A possible explanation for this finding," Oxenham writes, "is that the participants with a greater vocabulary in a particular domain were more prone to falsely feeling familiar with nonsense terms in that domain because of the fact that they had simply come across more similar-sounding terms in their lives, providing more material for potential confusion."
Interestingly, subsequent experiments showed that the correlation holds true even if you take away the factor of self-ranking. Presumably, someone who is cocky and arrogant and ranks his/her ability higher than is justified in one area would be likely to do it in others. But when they tested the subjects' knowledge of terms from their own field -- i.e., actually measured their expertise -- high scores still correlated with overestimating their knowledge in other areas.
And telling the subjects ahead of time that some of the terms might be made up didn't change the results. "[E]ven when participants were warned that some of the statements were false, the 'experts' were just as likely as before to claim to know the nonsense statements, while most of the other participants became more likely in this scenario to admit they’d never heard of them," Oxenham writes.
I have a bit of anecdotal evidence supporting this result from my experience in the classroom. On multiple-choice tests, I have to concoct plausible-sounding wrong answers as distractors. Every once in a while, I run out of good wrong answers, and just make something up. (On one AP Biology quiz on plant biochemistry, I threw in the term "photoglycolysis," which sounds pretty fancy until you realize that it doesn't exist.) What I find was that it was the average to upper-average students who are the most likely to be taken in by the ruse. The top students don't get fooled because they know what the correct answer is; the lowest students are equally likely to pick any of the wrong answers, because they don't understand the material well. The mid-range students see something that sounds technical and vaguely familiar -- and figure that if they aren't sure, it must be that they missed learning that particular term.
It's also the mid-range students who are most likely to miss questions where the actual answer seems too simple. Another botanical question I like to throw at them is "What do all non-vascular land plants have in common?" There are three wrong answers with appropriately technical-sounding jargon.
The actual answer is, "They're small."
Interestingly, the reason non-vascular land plants are small isn't simple at all. But the answer itself just looks too easy to merit being the correct choice on an AP Biology quiz.
So Atir, Rosenzweig, and Dunning have given us yet another mental pitfall to watch out for -- our tendency to use our knowledge in one field to overestimate our knowledge in others. But I really should run along, and make sure that the annualized credit on my pre-rated stocks exceeds the recommended fixed-rate deduction. I'm sure you can appreciate how important that is.