CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 713Memory Processes and InfluencesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention

Dunlosky, John, Rawson, Katherine A.·2012·Learning and Instruction
DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The pattern is consistent with well-documented illusions of competence, whereby fluent learning experiences can lead learners to overestimate their level of understanding.

    “this pattern is consistent with well-documented illusions of competence, whereby learning experiences that feel fluent and well-supported can lead learners to overestimate their level of understanding”

    From Socratic Mind: Impact of a Novel GenAI-Powered Formative Assessment Tool on Student Learning and Higher-Order Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as Dunlosky & Rawson, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Atkinson, 1972, Optimizing the learning of a second-language vocabulary, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 124, 10.1037/h0033475 · DOI
  2. Begg, 1992, Memory monitoring – how useful is self-knowledge about memory?, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 195, 10.1080/09541449208406182 · DOI
  3. Bisanz, 1978, Knowledge of ones own responding and relation of such knowledge to learning, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 116, 10.1016/0022-0965(78)90042-5 · DOI
  4. Bjorklund, 2009, The benefits of youth, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 120, 10.1080/17405620802602334 · DOI
  5. Boekaerts, 1997, Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students, Learning and Instruction, 2, 161, 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Boekaerts, 2010, Using multiple calibration indices in order to capture the complex picture of what affects students’ accuracy of feeling of confidence, Learning and Instruction, 20, 372, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.03.002 · DOI
  7. Castel, 2007, The adaptive and strategic use of memory by older adults: evaluative processing and value-directed remembering, Vol. 48, 225
  8. Dunlosky, 2011, Improving college students’ evaluation of text learning using idea-unit standards, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 467, 10.1080/17470218.2010.502239 · DOI
  9. Dunlosky, 2005, The self-monitoring approach for effective learning, Cognitive Technology, 10, 4
  10. Dunlosky, 2007, Metacomprehension: a brief history and how to improve its accuracy, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228, 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x · DOI
  11. Dunlosky, 1992, Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect, Memory & Cognition, 20, 373, 10.3758/BF03210921 · DOI
  12. Dunlosky, 2005, What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses, Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 551, 10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Griffin, 2008, Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation, Concurrent Processing and Cue Validity as Constraints on Metacomprehension Accuracy, 36, 93
  14. Hays, 2011, .The costs and benefits of providing feedback during learning, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 797, 10.3758/PBR.17.6.797 · DOI
  15. Hines, 2009, Metacognitive influences on study time allocation in an associative recognition task: an analysis of adult age differences, Psychology and Aging, 24, 462, 10.1037/a0014417 · DOI
  16. Keren, 1991, Calibration and probability judgments: conceptual and methodological issues, Acta Psychologica, 77, 217, 10.1016/0001-6918(91)90036-Y · DOI
  17. Kikas, 1998, The impact of teaching on students’ definitions and explanations of astronomical phenomena, Learning and Instruction, 8, 439, 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00004-8 · DOI
  18. Koriat, 1996, Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy, Psychological Review, 103, 490, 10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.490 · DOI
  19. Koriat, 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, 36, 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36 · DOI
  20. Lieberman, 1979, Behaviorism and the mind: A (limited) call for a return to introspection, American Psychologist, 34, 319, 10.1037/0003-066X.34.4.319 · DOI
  21. Lipko, 2009, Using standards to improve middle-school students’ accuracy at evaluating the quality of their recall, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 307, 10.1037/a0017599 · DOI
  22. Metcalfe, 2008, .Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 174, 10.3758/PBR.15.1.174 · DOI
  23. Nelson, 1996, Consciousness and metacognition, American Psychologist, 51, 102, 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102 · DOI
  24. Nelson, 1994, Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning, Psychological Science, 5, 207, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00502.x · DOI
  25. Nelson, 1990, Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings, Vol. 26, 125
  26. Rawson, 2007, Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559, 10.1080/09541440701326022 · DOI
  27. Rawson, 2011, Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 37, 899
  28. Schraw, 2009, A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring, Metacognition & Learning, 4, 33, 10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3 · DOI
  29. Shin, 2007, The adaptive nature of children’s overestimation in a strategic memory task, Cognitive Development, 22, 197, 10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.10.001 · DOI
  30. Son, 2000, Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204, 10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.204 · DOI
  31. Son, 2006, Metacognitive control and optimal learning, Cognitive Science, 30, 759, 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_74 · DOI
  32. Thiede, 1999, The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 662, 10.3758/BF03212976 · DOI
  33. Thiede, 2003, Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66, 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66 · DOI
  34. Thiede, 1999, Toward a general model of self-regulated study: an analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1024, 10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024 · DOI
  35. Thomas, 2007, The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test, Processing in Memory and Metacomprehension, 35, 668

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A.
Affiliations
Kent State University (US)
Corresponding author
Dunlosky, John
ORCID
Venue
Learning and Instruction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
271-280
ISSN
0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
OpenAlex
W2134929852
Cited by
713
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 18
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • Kent State University
  • Institute of Education Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
overconfidence, self-evaluation accuracy, metacognition, student self-regulation, learning monitoring, retention, cued recall, individual differences, university students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review