Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability - PubMed (original) (raw)

Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability

Jerker Denrell et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012.

Abstract

The relationship between performance and ability is a central concern in the social sciences: Are the most successful much more able than others, and are failures unskilled? Prior research has shown that noise and self-reinforcing dynamics make performance unpredictable and lead to a weak association between ability and performance. Here we show that the same mechanisms that generate unpredictability imply that extreme performances can be relatively uninformative about ability. As a result, the highest performers may not have the highest expected ability and should not be imitated or praised. We show that whether higher performance indicates higher ability depends on whether extreme performance could be achieved by skill or requires luck.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

The average value of ci for players who obtained different numbers of successes in 50 rounds. Based on 5 million simulations.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Illustration of the association between skill and the number of successes obtained in 50 rounds for strong and weak dependence. (A) wi = 0.9. (B) wi = 0.1. Each figure is based on 1,000 simulations.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

How expected degree of skill, E[ui|_Pi_], varies with performance when there is heterogeneity in both the skill and noise distribution but the noise distribution is more fat-tailed (based on numerical integration, for the case when n = 1 and s = 5).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Illustration of the association between skill and performance when the SD of the noise term is high and low. (A) The SD of the noise term is 3. (B) The SD of the noise term is 0.5. Each figure is based on 1,000 simulations.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Baron J, Hershey JC. Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(4):569–579. - PubMed
    1. Gilbert DT, Malone PS. The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull. 1995;117(1):21–38. - PubMed
    1. Richerson PJ, Boyd R. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press; 2005.
    1. Rogers AR. Does biology constrain culture? Am Anthropol. 1988;90(4):819–831.
    1. Thorngate W, Dawes R, Foddy M. Judging Merit. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2008.

LinkOut - more resources