Still no Dunning-Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller
Gignac and Zajenkowski reply to Hiller's comment on their 2020 paper. Hiller's main objection concerned how they had transformed their self-assessed intelligence scores. They re-analysed their data using the transformation he suggested and again found no support for the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. They add that the only study they could find using a percentile-based approach also largely failed to support it, and close by encouraging researchers to keep developing new ways to test the hypothesis.
Gignac and Zajenkowski reply to Hiller's comment on their 2020 paper. Hiller's main objection concerned how they had transformed their self-assessed intelligence scores. They re-analysed their data using the transformation he suggested and again found no support for the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis. They add that the only study they could find using a percentile-based approach also largely failed to support it, and close by encouraging researchers to keep developing new ways to test the hypothesis.
Written from the abstract, University of Western Australia research repository record, read 2026-10-25.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M. (2023). Still no Dunning-Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller. Intelligence, 97, 101733. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733