The students who more accurately estimated their scores were also more open to receiving critiques, most likely because they believed that they would learn and grow from understanding their mistakes. The overconfident kids weren't so open, maybe because confronting their mistakes would feel like a slap from the inadequacy yardstick.
It’s like the difference between shooting a missile at Godzilla and arm wrestling him.
The second study randomly assigned participants to read either an article supporting incremental theory or one supporting entity theory. Afterwards, each group was given a set of easy questions and a set of difficult questions to solve. Even when given an unlimited amount of time to finish the test and change answers as desired, those who read the entity theory spent less time on the difficult questions than their incremental counterparts. They were also more overconfident than the incrementalists, assuming they performed better, despite working faster.
However, the relative ease of the questions fed into the entity-endorsers’ overconfidence. When the tests diverted their attention toward only easy questions, overconfidence soared, but when directed toward only difficult questions, their confidence dropped to the (more accurate) level of the incremental theorists. This manipulation seemed to force the participants to really grapple with the problems. It’s like the difference between shooting a missile at Godzilla and arm wrestling him. Ultimately, in the arm wrestling portion of the test, you're forced to acknowledge your limitations.