New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

You Don't Know as Much as You Think: False Expertise

New research suggests that people who think they are experts tend to fall into the trap of overclaiming

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It is only logical to trust our instincts if we think we know a lot about a subject, right? New research suggests the opposite: self-proclaimed experts are more likely to fall victim to a phenomenon known as overclaiming, professing to know things they really do not.

People overclaim for a host of reasons, including a desire to influence others' opinions—when people think they are being judged, they will try to appear smarter. Yet sometimes overclaiming is not deliberate; rather it is an honest overestimation of knowledge.

In a series of experiments published in July in Psychological Science, researchers at Cornell University tested people's likelihood to overclaim in a variety of scenarios. In the first two experiments, participants rated how knowledgeable they believed themselves to be about a variety of topics, then rated how well they knew each of 15 terms, three of which were fake. The more knowledgeable people rated themselves to be on a particular topic, the more likely they were to claim knowledge of the fake terms in that field. In a third experiment, additional participants took the same tests, but half were warned that some terms would be fake. The warning reduced overclaiming in general but did not change the positive correlation between self-perceived knowledge and overclaiming.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In a final experiment, the researchers manipulated participants' self-perceived knowledge by giving one group a difficult geography quiz, one group an easy quiz and one group no quiz. Participants who took the easy quiz then rated themselves as knowing more about geography than did participants in the other groups and consequently were more likely to overclaim knowledge of fake terms on a subsequent test.

The results suggest that if you think you know a lot about something, you might want to double-check, lest you fall into the trap of skimming over words and concepts that seem familiar. In addition, the researchers point out that people who believe they know more than they do may be less inclined to pursue further education, or they may give advice about topics they do not fully understand. So the next time you are offered advice from a self-professed expert, you may want to take it with a grain of salt.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe