Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving

References

• Ackerman, R. (2014). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(3), 1349–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman, R. (2019). Heuristic cues for meta-reasoning judgments: Review and methodology. Psihologijske Teme, 28(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.28.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, R., & Beller, Y. (2017). Shared and distinct cue utilization for metacognitive judgments during reasoning and memorization. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(4), 376–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1328373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman, R., Douven, I., Elqayam, S., & Teodorescu, K. (2020). Satisficing, meta-reasoning, and the rationality of further deliberation. In Logic and Uncertainty in the Human Mind (pp. 10–26). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, R., Gal, A., Sagi, T., & Shraga, R. (2019). A cognitive model of human bias in matching [Paper presentation]. Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI).
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, R.,Parush, A.,Nassar, F., &Shtub, A. (2016). Metacognition and system usability: Incorporating metacognitive research paradigm into usability testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.041
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman, R., Yom-Tov, E., & Torgovitsky, I. (2020). Using confidence and consensuality to predict time invested in problem solving and in real-life web searching. Cognition, 199, 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alban, M. W., & Kelley, C. M. (2013). Embodiment meets metamemory: Weight as a cue for metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(5), 1628–1634.
   Google Scholar
• Anisman-Razin, M., & Levontin, L. (2020). Prosocial behavior reframed: How consumer mindsets shape dependency-oriented versus autonomy-oriented helping. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1086/706505
   Google Scholar
• Bae, J., Hong, S-s., & Son, L. K. (2021). Prior failures, laboring in vain, and knowing when to give up: Incremental versus entity theories. Metacognition and Learning, 16(2), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09253-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2007). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
   Google Scholar
• Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnette, J. L. (2010). Implicit theories of body weight: Entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359768
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression and correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Bruin, A. B., Roelle, J., Carpenter, S. K., & Baars, M. (2020). Synthesizing cognitive load and self-regulation theory: A theoretical framework and research agenda. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 903–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09576-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bruin, A. B., & van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiacconi, C. M., Mitton, E. E., Laursen, S. J., & Skinner, J. (2020). Isolating the contribution of perceptual fluency to judgments of learning (JOLs): Evidence for reactivity in measuring the influence of fluency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(5), 926–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000766
   Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., Ackerman, R., & Scarampi, C. (2019). Metacognition: Monitoring and controlling one’s own knowledge, reasoning and decisions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Eds.), The psychology of human thought: An introduction (pp. 89–111). Heidelberg University Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, G. E., & Heathcote, A. (2021). Racing against the clock: Evidence-based versus time-based decisions. Psychological Review, 128(2), 222–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, Y-y., Chiu, C-y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M.-S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(1), 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
   Google Scholar
• Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2019). Initial judgment of solvability in non-verbal problems–A predictor of solving processes. Metacognition and Learning, 14(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09194-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levontin, L., Halperin, E., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). Implicit theories block negative attributions about a longstanding adversary: The case of Israelis and Arabs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 670–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig, J., Ahrens, F. K., & Achtziger, A. (2020). Errors, fast and slow: An analysis of response times in probability judgments. Thinking & Reasoning, 26(4), 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1781691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miele, D. B., Finn, B., & Molden, D. C. (2011). Does easily learned mean easily remembered? It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. The American Psychologist, 61(3), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, P. A., Horberg, E., Lee, F., & Dweck, C. S. (in press). Implicit theories of opportunity: When opportunity fails to knock, keep waiting, or start cultivating? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(6), 1146–1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000330
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oyserman, D., & Dawson, A. (2021). Successful learning environments support and harness students’ identity-based motivation: A primer. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(3), 508–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1873091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., Novin, S., Fisher, O., & Smith, G. C. (2018). Guiding people to interpret their experienced difficulty as importance highlights their academic possibilities and improves their academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, S. J., & Duggan, G. B. (2011). Giving up problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 902–913. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0068-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, Y., & Tullis, J. G. (2020). Theories of intelligence influence self-regulated study choices and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000740
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9(5), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., Jalbert, M., Noah, T., & Zhang, L. (2021). Metacognitive experiences as information: Processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1067
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, G. C., & Oyserman, D. (2015). Just not worth my time? Experienced difficulty and time investment. Social Cognition, 33(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2015.33.2.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Son, L. K., & Sethi, R. (2010). Adaptive learning and the allocation of time. Adaptive Behavior, 18(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712309344776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sriram, R. (2014). Rethinking intelligence: The role of mindset in promoting success for academically high-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention, 15(4), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.15.4.c
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2020). Why humans are cognitive misers and what it means for the great rationality debate. In R. Viale (Ed.), Routledge handbook of bounded rationality (pp. 196–206). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Susser, J. A., Jin, A., & Mulligan, N. W. (2016). Identity priming consistently affects perceptual fluency but only affects metamemory when primes are obvious. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42(4), 657–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000189
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J. J. G. v., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Undorf, M., & Ackerman, R. (2017). The puzzle of study time allocation for the most challenging items. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 2003–2011. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1261-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unkelbach, C., & Greifeneder, R. (2013). A general model of fluency effects in judgment and decision making. In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 11–32). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Duyn, E., & Collier, J. (2019). Priming and fake news: The effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Communication and Society, 22(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1511807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge.
   Google Scholar