Cited by 30Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Learning the hard way: need for cognition influences attitudes toward and self-reported use of desirable difficulties.

Weissgerber, Sophia C., Reinhard, Marc-André, Schindler, Simon·2018·Educational Psychology

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between Need for Cognition (NFC), attitude towards and self-reported application of different desirable difficulties in self-regulated learning. Students with a higher NFC should be more appreciative and prone to use desirable difficulties because of a match between the learner’s attributes and the learning task requirements: cognitively effortful learning conditions will be preferred by students with a higher propensity for cognitive challenges. Supporting our hypotheses, we show that indeed a higher NFC positively relates to attitudes and use of different desirable difficulties (Study 1–2), especially to self-generating of materials and predictions, but weaker and inconsistently to interleaving/spacing and self-testing/practicing. While self-generating of contents and predictions loaded on one factor, and interleaving/spacing together with self-testing/practicing loaded on another factor, this two-factor structure was reliably obtained for self-reported use, yet for attitudes a one-factor structure did fit. Most importantly though, the observed relationship between NFC and different desirable difficulties could neither be explained by high school graduation grade, indicating academic competence (Study 1), nor by academic self-concept as one’s perception of one’s academic abilities (Study 2). Results are discussed within an information-processing framework related to implications for desirable difficulties as learning strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01443410.2017.1387644

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weissgerber, S. C., Reinhard, M.-A., & Schindler, S.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Corresponding author
Weissgerber, Sophia C.
Venue
Educational Psychology
Published
2017-10-23
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
176-202
ISSN
  • 0144-3410 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5820
OpenAlex
W2766720133
Cited by
30
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
LOEWE (desirable difficulties; intrinsic cognitive motiva)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
need for cognition, desirable difficulties, student self-regulation, interleaving, spacing effect, self-testing, academic self-concept, academic competence, information processing theory, learning strategies

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