The affective cost of miscalibration: Effects of discovering self-assessment accuracy on emotions and self-efficacy

The alignment of self-assessment judgements to formal grading (i.e., accuracy) is an essential process by which students calibrate their thinking about work quality to disciplinary standards. However, extensive research shows that students are not well-calibrated in their self-assessments. Relatively little is known about how the realism of self-assessment affects positive or negative emotions and self-efficacy. In this study, we examined the relationships between self-assessment accuracy (over- or under-estimation) and students' emotions and self-efficacy. A total of 112 higher education students wrote an essay, self-assessed their performance, received feedback, self-assessed again, and subsequently received the tutor grades for their essays, creating a potential discrepancy between self-assessment and tutor assessment grades. Based on the sequence of events in the experiment, we used autoregressive path modeling to examine the repeated measures relationship of emotions and self-efficacy over time. Starting values for the two emotions and self-efficacy were strong predictors across time. The discrepancy between tutor and self-assessed grades was introduced after two rounds of self-reported emotions and self-efficacy and regressed onto the third round of those variables. Students who overestimated their performance experienced a decline in positive emotions, an increase in negative emotions, and a decrease in self-efficacy when confronted with their inaccuracies. In contrast, those who had underestimated their performance had a concomitant increase in positive emotions and self-efficacy, and a decrease in negative emotions. This study highlights the importance of fostering self-assessment accuracy for emotional well-being and self-efficacy. Future research should delve deeper into processes that support calibrated realism in student self-assessment.