Skip to main content

The instinct fallacy: the metacognition of answering and revising during college exams

Abstract

Students often gauge their performance before and after an exam, usually in the form of rough grade estimates or general feelings. Are these estimates accurate? Should they form the basis for decisions about study time, test-taking strategies, revisions, subject mastery, or even general competence? In two studies, undergraduates took a real multiple-choice exam, described their general beliefs and feelings, tracked their performance for each question, and noted any revisions or possible revisions. Beliefs formed after the exams were poor predictors of performance. In contrast, real-time metacognitive monitoring – measured by confidence ratings for each individual question – accurately predicted performance and were a much better decisional guide. Measuring metacognitive monitoring also allowed us to examine the process of revising an answer. Should a test-taker rely on their first choice or revise in the face of uncertainty? Experience seems to show that first instincts are correct. The decision-making literature calls this the first-instinct fallacy, based on extensive analysis of revisions, and recommends revising more. However, whereas revisions have been analyzed in great detail, previous studies did not analyze the efficacy of sticking with an original choice. We found that both revising and sticking resulted in significantly more correct than incorrect outcomes, with real-time metacognition predicting when each was most appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Balance, C. T. (1977). Students’ expectations and their answer-changing behavior. Psychological Reports, 41, 163–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcomb, F. K., & Gerkin, L. (2008). Three-year-old children can access their own memory to guide responses on a visual matching task. Developmental Science, 11, 750–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, L. T., Cavell, A., & Shallenberger, W. R. (1984). Staying with initial answers on objective tests: Is it a myth? Teaching of Psychology, 11(3), 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisanz, G. L., Vesonder, G. T., & Voss, J. F. (1978). Knowledge of one’s own responding and the relation of such knowledge to learning: a developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Hacker, D. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2012). Calibration research: where do we go from here? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, L. T., Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy. Psychology and Aging, 12, 50–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couchman, J. J., Coutinho, M. V. C., Beran, M. J., & Smith, J. D. (2010). Beyond stimulus cues and reinforcement history: a new approach to animal metacognition. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 124(4), 356–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. (1928). The technique of study. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L., & Benson, J. (1980). Does answer changing affect test quality? Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 12, 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Gardelle, V., & Mamassian, P. (2014). Does confidence use a common currency across two visual tasks? Psychological Science, 25(6), 1286–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2013). What are confidence judgments made of? Students’ explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Connor, L. T. (1997). Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 25, 691–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2011). Overconfidence produces underachievement: inaccurate self-evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). The neural basis of accurate metacognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 1338–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foote, R., & Belinky, C. (1972). It pays to switch? Consequences of changing answers on multiple-choice examinations. Psychological Reports, 31, 667–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, M. A. (1996). On the benefits of changing multiple- choice answers: student perception and performance. Education, 117, 108–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvil, L. M., & Davis, G. (1997). Medical students’ reasons for changing answers on multiple-choice tests. Academic Medicine, 72, S97–S99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higham, P. A., & Gerrard, C. (2005). Not all errors are created equal: metacognition and changing answers on multiple-choice tests. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(1), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J. C., Touron, D. R., & Hertzog, C. (2009). Metacognitive influences on study time allocation in an associative recognition task: an analysis of adult age differences. Psychology and Aging, 24, 462–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, E. M., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1989). Judgments of item difficulty by good and poor associative learners. American Journal of Psychology, 102, 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A., III. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 92–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Memory attributions: remembering, knowing, and feeling of knowing. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 287–308). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Memory as something that can be counted vs. memory as something that can be counted on. In D. J. Herrmann, C. McEvoy, C. Hertzog, P. Hertel, & M. K. Johnson (Eds.), Basic and applied memory research: Practical applications (Vol. 2, pp. 3–18). NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. K. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: the role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornell, N., Son, L., & Terrace, H. (2007). Transfer of metacognitive skills and hint seeking in monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., & Miller, D. T. (2005). Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 725–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., Beyerstein, B. L. (2011). 50 Geat myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Wiley.

  • Lovelace, E. A. (1984). Metamemory: monitoring future recallability during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 756–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, D. O., & Smith, B. C. (1975). Item response changes: effects on test scores. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 7, 220–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Swett, S. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, C. O. (1929). Erroneous first impressions on objective tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 280–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMorris, R. F., DeMers, L. P., & Schwartz, S. P. (1987). Attitudes, behaviours, and reasons for changing respons- es following answer-changing instruction. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 174–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011). Training metacognition in the classroom: the influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. J., & Shwedel, A. (1975). Some correlates of net gain resultant from answer changing on objective achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 251–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. J., & Wasser, V. (1977). Implications of changing answers on objective test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 125–173). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006a). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., Enders, C. K., & Schraw, G. (2006b). A Monte Carlo comparison of measures of relative and absolute monitoring accuracy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 258–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfect, T. J. (2002). When does eyewitness confidence predict performance? In T. J. Perfect & B. I. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 95–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Revuelta, J., Ximénez, C., & Olea, J. (2003). Psychometric and psychological effects of item selection and review on computerized testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 791–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: major trends and implications for education. Mind Brain and Education, 2, 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. L. (2011). The effect of being in a tip-of-the-tongue state on subsequent items. Memory & Cognition, 39(2), 245–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. L., & Bacon, E. (2008). Metacognitive neuroscience. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of memory and metamemory: Essays in honor of Thomas O. Nelson (pp. 355–371). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shatz, M. A., & Best, J. B. (1987). Students’ reasons for changing answers on objective tests. Teaching of Psychology, 14(4), 241–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., White, K. P., & Coop, R. H. (1979). The effect of item type on the consequences of changing answers on multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. D., Couchman, J. J., & Beran, M. J. (2014). The highs and lows of theoretical interpretation in animal-metacognition research. In S. M. Fleming & C. D. Frith (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B. J. (1996). Individual and group predictions of item difficulty for free learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 673–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vispoel, W. (1998). Reviewing and changing answers on computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 329–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vispoel, W. (2000). Reviewing and changing answers on computerized fixed-item vocabulary tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuk, J., & Morse, D. T. (2012). College students’ behavior on self-tailored, multiple-choice examinations. Innovative Teaching, 1, 2165–2236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, W. (1994). Learning ability and memory monitoring. Intelligence, 18, 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by the Albright Creative Research Experience (ACRE) award to Noelle E. Miller and Justin J. Couchman. We thank Lauren Taglialatela for helpful comments about the early experimental procedures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin J. Couchman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Couchman, J.J., Miller, N.E., Zmuda, S.J. et al. The instinct fallacy: the metacognition of answering and revising during college exams. Metacognition Learning 11, 171–185 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9140-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9140-8

Keywords

  • Metacognition
  • Metamemory
  • Decision making
  • Exam revising
  • First-instinct fallacy