On the relationship between regulatory focus and response bias in multiple-choice exams

References

• Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). AMOS 22 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, M. M., Graham, K., & Hollingworth-Hughes, S. (2017). What’s context got to do with it? Comparative difficulty of test questions influences metacognition and corrected scores for formula-scored exams. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31, 146–155. doi:10.1002/acp.3312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, M. M., Higham, P. A., & Martín-Luengo, B. (2013). A little bias goes a long way: The effects of feedback on the strategic regulation of accuracy on formula-scored tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 383–402. doi:10.1037/a0034833
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ávila, C., & Torrubia, R. (2004). Personality, expectations, and response strategies in multiple-choice question examinations in university students: A test of Gray’s hypotheses. European Journal of Personality, 18, 45–59. doi:10.1002/per.506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandaranayake, R., Payne, J., & White, S. (1999). Using multiple response true-false multiple choice questions. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 69, 311–315. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1622.1999.01551.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bar-Hillel, M., Budescu, D., & Attali, Y. (2005). Scoring and keying multiple choice tests: A case study in irrationality. Mind & Society, 4, 3–12. doi:10.1007/s11299-005-0001-z
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, P., & Dunford, R. (2008). The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making. Applied Psychology, 57, 335–359. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00319.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Self-discrepancies and affect: Incorporating the role of feared selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 783–792. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecilio-Fernandes, D., Medema, H., Collares, C. F., Schuwirth, L., Cohen-Schotanus, J., & Tio, R. A. (2017). Comparison of formula and number-right scoring in undergraduate medical training: A Rasch model analysis. BMC Medical Education, 17, 192. doi:10.1186/s12909-017-1051-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-S. A., & Bei, L.-T. (2017). Reviewing regulatory focus based on four regulatory forms. Review of General Psychology, 21, 354–371. doi:10.1037/gpr0000133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, E. K., Kim, S. J., & Sohn, Y. W. (2014). Regulatory focus as a predictor of omission bias in moral judgement: Mediating role of anticipated regrets. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 302–311. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, L. K., Agarwal, P. K., Marsh, E. J., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). Memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing on immediate and delayed tests. Memory & Cognition, 38, 507–518. doi:10.3758/MC.38.4.407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fellner, B., Holler, M., Kirchler, E., & Schabmann, A. (2007). Regulatory Focus Scale (RFS): Development of a scale to record dispositional regulatory focus. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 109–116. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.66.2.109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309–334. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamstra, M. R. W., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Veldstra, J. L. (2011). Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 134–137. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. m., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 967–982. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (2000). Beyond pleasure and pain. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational science. Social and personality perspectives (pp. 231–255). Sussex: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A: (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23. doi:10.1002/ejsp.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higham, P. A., & Arnold, M. M. (2007). How many questions should I answer? Using bias profiles to estimate optimal bias and maximum score on formula-scored tests. European Journal of Congitive Psychology, 19, 718–742. doi:10.1080/09541440701326121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2006). Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: The interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms on test performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 393–405. doi:10.1002/ejsp.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubinger, K. D., & Gottschall, C. H. (2007). Item difficulty of multiple choice tests dependant on different item response formats – An experiment in fundamental research on psychological assessment. Psychology Science, 49, 361–374.
   Google Scholar
• Lesage, E., Valcke, M., & Sabbe, E. (2013). Scoring methods for multiple choice assessment in higher education – Is it still a matter of number right scoring or negative marking? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 188–193. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberman, N., Modlen, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5–18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner, M. A., Strobel, B., & Köller, O. (2015). Multiple-Choice-Prüfungen an Hochschulen? Ein Literaturüberblick und Plädoyer für mehr praxisorientierte Forschung [Are multiple-choice exams useful for universities? A literature review and argument for a more practice oriented research]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 29, 133–149. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000156
   Google Scholar
• Lockwood, P., Jordon, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mobalegh, A., & Barati, H. (2012). Multiple true-false (MTF) and multiple-choice (MC) test formats: A comparison between two versions of the same test paper of Iranian NUEE. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 1027–1037. doi:10.4304/jltr.3.5.1027-1037
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 3–13. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x
   Google Scholar
• Roediger, H. L., & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1155–1159. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholer, A. A., Stroessner, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Responding to negativity: How a risky tactic can serve a vigilant strategy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 767–774. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholer, A. A, Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 215–231. doi:10.1037/a0019715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 117, 34–50. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34
   Google Scholar
• Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137–149. doi:10.3758/BF03207704
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in personality, 42, 247–254. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suurmond, R., van Rhee, H., & Hak, T. (2017). Introduction, comparison and validation of Meta-Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 8, 537–553. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1260
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar