Enly attributed to knowing the complete BAY1217389 web meaning of a word directly when in fact one only knows it by virtue of knowing, or at least believing in, a chain of access to experts. To use one classic example from Putnam, most adults believe they fully understand the meaning of “gold” and may indeed refer successfully to gold and know some of its properties, yet may only succeed because they trust that others with greater expertise in chemistry and atomic structure could always tell the difference between gold and other substances. In some cases this division of linguistic labor may be explicit. For example, work in linguistics has found that Americans can list many different types of tree, but only report being able to identify around 50 of them by looking at them (Gatewood, 1983). However, in the following experiments we suggest that participants’ knowledge may be even more limited than they realize. 1.2. Illusions of understanding People are often unaware of the shortcomings in their own knowledge, and these gaps can depend on quite specific features of that knowledge. Consider, for example, the “Illusion of Explanatory Depth” (IOED) (Carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone supplier Rozenblit Keil, 2002). When asked to rate their understanding of a mechanical or biological system, adults will often rate themselves quiteCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 November 01.Kominsky and KeilPagehighly. However, when they provide an explanation, their explanations are often skeletal and incomplete, and the act of trying to produce it makes them aware of the gaps in their understanding. Recent work has suggested that individuals vary in their susceptibility to the IOED based on how much they tend to deliberate, as measured by scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test (Fernbach, Sloman, St. Louis, Shube, in press), but the effect depends on the kind of knowledge involved and is not a matter of general overconfidence. People are quite accurate in gauging their own knowledge in certain domains, such as procedural or narrative knowledge (Rozenblit Keil, 2002). Factors that make the IOED particularly strong for explanatory causal knowledge may include confusions with functional and mechanistic understandings, the ability to recover information from systems when presented with them, and misattributing that real-time recovery from inspection to having internally represented the explanation. Recent work has extended this idea further. Alter, Oppenheimer, Zemla (2010) argued that “IOEDs are likely to emerge when people mistake their mastery of the abstract characteristics of the concept for a belief that they understand the concrete aspects of the concept much more deeply than they actually do” (p. 437). Thus, an illusion of understanding may not be exclusively bound to explanations or causal systems, and in fact an analogous illusion can be found in people’s intuitions about their ability to justify arguments in far more detail than they really can (Fisher Keil, in press). Here, we propose that these illusions extend to vocabulary, and furthermore that they result from a similar process to the one proposed by Alter et al. (2010) for the IOED. In the context of word meaning, “abstract” versus “concrete” is not the most apt way of describing this contrast. The relevant aspect of the “abstract” versus “concrete” distinction concerns levels of detail. “Abstract”, in the context of the IOED, refers to a coarse level of detail, and “concrete” to a more fine level of detail. For word mean.Enly attributed to knowing the complete meaning of a word directly when in fact one only knows it by virtue of knowing, or at least believing in, a chain of access to experts. To use one classic example from Putnam, most adults believe they fully understand the meaning of “gold” and may indeed refer successfully to gold and know some of its properties, yet may only succeed because they trust that others with greater expertise in chemistry and atomic structure could always tell the difference between gold and other substances. In some cases this division of linguistic labor may be explicit. For example, work in linguistics has found that Americans can list many different types of tree, but only report being able to identify around 50 of them by looking at them (Gatewood, 1983). However, in the following experiments we suggest that participants’ knowledge may be even more limited than they realize. 1.2. Illusions of understanding People are often unaware of the shortcomings in their own knowledge, and these gaps can depend on quite specific features of that knowledge. Consider, for example, the “Illusion of Explanatory Depth” (IOED) (Rozenblit Keil, 2002). When asked to rate their understanding of a mechanical or biological system, adults will often rate themselves quiteCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 November 01.Kominsky and KeilPagehighly. However, when they provide an explanation, their explanations are often skeletal and incomplete, and the act of trying to produce it makes them aware of the gaps in their understanding. Recent work has suggested that individuals vary in their susceptibility to the IOED based on how much they tend to deliberate, as measured by scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test (Fernbach, Sloman, St. Louis, Shube, in press), but the effect depends on the kind of knowledge involved and is not a matter of general overconfidence. People are quite accurate in gauging their own knowledge in certain domains, such as procedural or narrative knowledge (Rozenblit Keil, 2002). Factors that make the IOED particularly strong for explanatory causal knowledge may include confusions with functional and mechanistic understandings, the ability to recover information from systems when presented with them, and misattributing that real-time recovery from inspection to having internally represented the explanation. Recent work has extended this idea further. Alter, Oppenheimer, Zemla (2010) argued that “IOEDs are likely to emerge when people mistake their mastery of the abstract characteristics of the concept for a belief that they understand the concrete aspects of the concept much more deeply than they actually do” (p. 437). Thus, an illusion of understanding may not be exclusively bound to explanations or causal systems, and in fact an analogous illusion can be found in people’s intuitions about their ability to justify arguments in far more detail than they really can (Fisher Keil, in press). Here, we propose that these illusions extend to vocabulary, and furthermore that they result from a similar process to the one proposed by Alter et al. (2010) for the IOED. In the context of word meaning, “abstract” versus “concrete” is not the most apt way of describing this contrast. The relevant aspect of the “abstract” versus “concrete” distinction concerns levels of detail. “Abstract”, in the context of the IOED, refers to a coarse level of detail, and “concrete” to a more fine level of detail. For word mean.