{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/88109"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/88109","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Failure to update metacognitive control in response to expected retention intervals","abstract":"To effectively allocate encoding resources, learners should take into account how long they need to retain information before it will be needed. Four experiments investigated whether expected retention intervals affect subjects’ encoding strategies. Subjects studied paired associates consisting of words from the Graduate Record Exam and a synonym. They were told to expect a test on a word pair after either a short or a longer interval. Subjects were tested on most pairs after the expected retention interval. On some pairs, however, subjects were tested after the other retention interval, allowing for a comparison of performance at a given retention interval conditional upon the expected retention interval. No effect of expected retention interval was found for 1 minute versus 4 minutes (Experiment 1), 30 seconds versus 3 minutes (Experiment 2), for 30 seconds versus 10 minutes (Experiments 3 and 4), and even when subjects were given complete control over the pacing of study items (Experiment 4). Subjects completed a study strategy questionnaire after Experiments 3 and 4 that indicated that these null effects were not due to unsuccessful strategy implementation; subjects appear to have adopted nearly identical learning strategies for the two intervals. This set of results accords with much of the test-expectancy literature, in which subjects rarely make qualitative adjustments to their encoding strategies based on expected test features. A Bayesian analysis provided strong evidence to suggest that learners fail to compensate for anticipated forgetting with differential encoding.","abstract_html":"To effectively allocate encoding resources, learners should take into account how long they need to retain information before it will be needed. Four experiments investigated whether expected retention intervals affect subjects’ encoding strategies. Subjects studied paired associates consisting of words from the Graduate Record Exam and a synonym. They were told to expect a test on a word pair after either a short or a longer interval. Subjects were tested on most pairs after the expected retention interval. On some pairs, however, subjects were tested after the other retention interval, allowing for a comparison of performance at a given retention interval conditional upon the expected retention interval. No effect of expected retention interval was found for 1 minute versus 4 minutes (Experiment 1), 30 seconds versus 3 minutes (Experiment 2), for 30 seconds versus 10 minutes (Experiments 3 and 4), and even when subjects were given complete control over the pacing of study items (Experiment 4). Subjects completed a study strategy questionnaire after Experiments 3 and 4 that indicated that these null effects were not due to unsuccessful strategy implementation; subjects appear to have adopted nearly identical learning strategies for the two intervals. This set of results accords with much of the test-expectancy literature, in which subjects rarely make qualitative adjustments to their encoding strategies based on expected test features. A Bayesian analysis provided strong evidence to suggest that learners fail to compensate for anticipated forgetting with differential encoding.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Fiechter, Joshua L."],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"M.A.","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Benjamin, Aaron S."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-29T20:38:50Z","date_published":"2015-09-29T20:38:50Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:31Z","subjects":["metacognition","decision making","forgetting"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2015 Joshua Fiechter"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/88109","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Benjamin, Aaron S."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Fiechter, Joshua L."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-29T20:38:50Z","2015-08","2015-07-23","2015-8"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.A."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["metacognition","decision making","forgetting"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2015 Joshua Fiechter"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/88109"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["To effectively allocate encoding resources, learners should take into account how long they need to retain information before it will be needed. Four experiments investigated whether expected retention intervals affect subjects’ encoding strategies. Subjects studied paired associates consisting of words from the Graduate Record Exam and a synonym. They were told to expect a test on a word pair after either a short or a longer interval. Subjects were tested on most pairs after the expected retention interval. On some pairs, however, subjects were tested after the other retention interval, allowing for a comparison of performance at a given retention interval conditional upon the expected retention interval. No effect of expected retention interval was found for 1 minute versus 4 minutes (Experiment 1), 30 seconds versus 3 minutes (Experiment 2), for 30 seconds versus 10 minutes (Experiments 3 and 4), and even when subjects were given complete control over the pacing of study items (Experiment 4). Subjects completed a study strategy questionnaire after Experiments 3 and 4 that indicated that these null effects were not due to unsuccessful strategy implementation; subjects appear to have adopted nearly identical learning strategies for the two intervals. This set of results accords with much of the test-expectancy literature, in which subjects rarely make qualitative adjustments to their encoding strategies based on expected test features. A Bayesian analysis provided strong evidence to suggest that learners fail to compensate for anticipated forgetting with differential encoding.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2015-09-29 without embargo terms","The student, Joshua Fiechter, accepted the attached license on 2015-07-22 at 09:59.","The student, Joshua Fiechter, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2015-07-22 at 10:06.","This Thesis was approved for publication on 2015-07-23 at 11:53.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #8604 on 2015-09-29 at 13:23:33","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-29T20:38:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 FIECHTER-THESIS-2015.pdf: 169329 bytes, checksum: de8c10542b9a6a4873f15d1a16f835f2 (MD5) fiechterMasters.docx: 109540 bytes, checksum: 7a5450215911895cbe864e99b211e633 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4212 bytes, checksum: f0294a4f146a1330026c84c103848c8b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-07-23"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Failure to update metacognitive control in response to expected retention intervals"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Benjamin, Aaron S."],"dc:creator":["Fiechter, Joshua L."],"dc:date":["2015-09-29T20:38:50Z","2015-08","2015-07-23","2015-8"],"dc:description":["To effectively allocate encoding resources, learners should take into account how long they need to retain information before it will be needed. Four experiments investigated whether expected retention intervals affect subjects’ encoding strategies. Subjects studied paired associates consisting of words from the Graduate Record Exam and a synonym. They were told to expect a test on a word pair after either a short or a longer interval. Subjects were tested on most pairs after the expected retention interval. On some pairs, however, subjects were tested after the other retention interval, allowing for a comparison of performance at a given retention interval conditional upon the expected retention interval. No effect of expected retention interval was found for 1 minute versus 4 minutes (Experiment 1), 30 seconds versus 3 minutes (Experiment 2), for 30 seconds versus 10 minutes (Experiments 3 and 4), and even when subjects were given complete control over the pacing of study items (Experiment 4). Subjects completed a study strategy questionnaire after Experiments 3 and 4 that indicated that these null effects were not due to unsuccessful strategy implementation; subjects appear to have adopted nearly identical learning strategies for the two intervals. This set of results accords with much of the test-expectancy literature, in which subjects rarely make qualitative adjustments to their encoding strategies based on expected test features. A Bayesian analysis provided strong evidence to suggest that learners fail to compensate for anticipated forgetting with differential encoding.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2015-09-29 without embargo terms","The student, Joshua Fiechter, accepted the attached license on 2015-07-22 at 09:59.","The student, Joshua Fiechter, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2015-07-22 at 10:06.","This Thesis was approved for publication on 2015-07-23 at 11:53.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #8604 on 2015-09-29 at 13:23:33","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-29T20:38:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 FIECHTER-THESIS-2015.pdf: 169329 bytes, checksum: de8c10542b9a6a4873f15d1a16f835f2 (MD5) fiechterMasters.docx: 109540 bytes, checksum: 7a5450215911895cbe864e99b211e633 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4212 bytes, checksum: f0294a4f146a1330026c84c103848c8b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-07-23"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/88109"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2015 Joshua Fiechter"],"dc:subject":["metacognition","decision making","forgetting"],"dc:title":["Failure to update metacognitive control in response to expected retention intervals"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.A."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:31Z"}