Skip to main content
Download PDF

Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it

Memory & Cognition volume 38, pages 366–376 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

We examined the effect of three variables (test list structure, report option, and framing) on retrospective bias in global evaluations of test performance (postdictions). Participants answered general knowledge questions and estimated correctness of their performance after each block. The ordering of the questions within a block affected bias: Participants believed they had answered more questions correctly when questions were sorted from the easiest to the hardest than when the same questions were randomized or sorted from the hardest to the easiest. This bias was obtained on global postdictions but was not apparent on item-by-item ratings, pointing to a memory-based phenomenon. In addition, forcing participants to produce a response to every question increased performance without affecting evaluations. Finally, framing the evaluation question in terms of the number of questions answered incorrectly (rather than the number correctly answered) did not affect how positively participants evaluated their performance, but did render postdictions less accurate. Our results provide evidence that students’ evaluations of performance after a test are prone to retrospective memory biases.

References

  • Anderson, N. H., & Barrios, A. A. (1961). Primacy effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 63, 346–350. doi:10.1037/h0046719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (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 

  • Bousfield, W. A., & Rosner, S. R. (1970). Free vs. uninhibited recall. Psychonomic Science, 20, 75–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdelyi, M. H., Finks, J., & Feigin-Pfau, M. B. (1989). The effect of response bias on recall performance, with some observations on processing bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 245–254. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.118.3.245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, B. (2008). Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Memory & Cognition, 36, 813–821. doi:10.3758/MC.36.4.813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 702–718. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. L., Bol, L., & Keener, M. C. (2008). Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory. (pp. 429–455). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higham, P. A. (2007). No Special K! A signal detection framework for the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 1–22. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivey, A. (2005). The Ivey guide to law school admissions: Straight advice on essays, resumes, interviews, and more. PA: Harvest Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–405. doi:10.1162/003355397555235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77, 217–273. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(91)90036-Y

    Article  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. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490–517. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 107–118. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LSAT Repeater Data (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2009, from www.lsac.org/pdfs/RepeaterData.pdf.

  • Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., & Punćochaŕ, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 114–121. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunz, M. E., Bergstrom, B. A., & Gershon, R. C. (1994). Computer adaptive testing. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 663–679. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. N., & Stocking, M. L. (1996). Practical issues in large-scale computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 287–304. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0904_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 338–368. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90266-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 232–249. doi:10.2307/748004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: Real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66, 3–8. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(96)02994-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., III, & Payne, D. G. (1985). Recall criterion does not affect recall level or hypermnesia: A puzzle for generate/recognize theories. Memory & Cognition, 13, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., III, Srinivas, K., & Waddill, P. (1989). How much does guessing influence recall? Comment on Erdelyi, Finks, and Feigin-Pfau. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 255–257. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.118.3.255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheck, P., Meeter, M., & Nelson, T. O. (2004). Anchoring effects in the absolute accuracy of immediate versus delayed judgments of learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 71–79. doi:10.1016/ j.jml.2004.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankov, L., & Crawford, J. D. (1996). Confidence judgments in studies of individual differences. Personality & Individual Differences, 21, 971–986. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00130-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonidandel, S., Quiñones, M. A., & Adams, A. A. (2002). Computeradaptive testing: The impact of test characteristics on perceived performance and test takers’ reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 320–332. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., Schwartz, N., & Belli, R. F. (1998). The role of ease of retrieval and attribution in memory judgments: Judging your memory as worse despite recalling more events. Psychological Science, 9, 124–126. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00022

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Washington University, One Brookings Drive, Box 1125, 63130, St. Louis, MO

    Yana Weinstein & Henry L. Roediger

Authors
  1. Yana Weinstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry L. Roediger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yana Weinstein.

Additional information

Support for this research was provided by a James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative grant: Bridging Brain, Mind and Behavior/Collaborative Award.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weinstein, Y., Roediger, H.L. Retrospective bias in test performance: Providing easy items at the beginning of a test makes students believe they did better on it. Memory & Cognition 38, 366–376 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.366

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.366

Keywords

  • Confidence Rating
  • Random Condition
  • Hard Condition
  • Confidence Judgment
  • Easy Question