Test-Enhanced Learning and Incentives in Biology Education.

Cognitive scientists have recommended the use of test-enhanced learning in science classrooms. Test-enhanced learning includes the testing effect, in which learners' recall of information encountered in testing exceeds that of information not tested. The influence of incentives (e.g., points received) on learners who experience the testing effect in classrooms is less understood. The objective of our study was to examine the effects of incentives in a postsecondary biology course. We administered exams in the course using a quasi-experimental design with low and high point incentives and measured student learning. Although exposure to exams predicted better learning, incentive level did not moderate this effect, an outcome that contradicted recent laboratory findings that higher incentives decreased student recall. We discuss possible explanations of the disparate outcomes as well as the implications for further research on the testing effect in postsecondary biology classrooms.

Loss Aversion as a Potential Factor in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy.

The sunk-cost fallacy (SCF) occurs when an individual makes an investment with a low probability of a payoff because an earlier investment was made. The investments may be time, effort, or money. Previous researchers showed that larger prior investments were more likely to lead to the SCF than lower investments were, though little research has been focused on comparing investment types. There are several theories of the SCF, but few have implicated loss aversion, the higher sensitivity to losses than to gains, as a potential factor. We studied the differential effects of investment amount and type on the occurrence of the SCF and explored loss aversion as a potential explanation of these differences. There were 168 participants, who completed a sunk-cost task as well as an endowment-effect task, which was a measure of loss aversion. A 3 3 mixed-design ANCOVA was used in which the SCF score was the dependent variable and loss-aversion scores were used as a covariate. The SCF occurred most often with money, less with time, and least with effort. Loss aversion displayed a weak negative relation to the SCF.

La falacia del costo irrecuperable (SCF, por sus siglas en inglés) se produce cuando una persona realiza una inversión con una baja probabilidad de pago porque se realizó una inversión anterior. Las inversiones pueden ser tiempo, esfuerzo o dinero. Diferentes investigadores demostraron que las inversiones previas más grandes tenían mayor probabilidad de conducir al SCF que las inversiones más bajas, aunque pocas investigaciones se han centrado en comparar los tipos de inversión. Existen varias teorías de la SCF, pero pocas han incluido la aversión a las pérdidas, mayor sensibilidad a las pérdidas que a las ganancias, como un factor potencial. Estudiamos los efectos diferenciales del monto y el tipo de inversión en la ocurrencia de la SCF y exploramos la aversión a la pérdida como una posible explicación de estas diferencias. Se contó con 168 participantes, quienes completaron una tarea de costo irrecuperable, así como una tarea de efecto de dotación, que fue una medida de la aversión a la pérdida. Se utilizó un ANCOVA de diseño mixto de 3 3 en el que la puntuación de SCF fue la variable dependiente y las puntuaciones de aversión a la pérdida se usaron como covariables. El SCF se produjo con mayor frecuencia en relación al dinero, seguido por el tiempo y, por último, al esfuerzo. La aversión a la pérdida mostró una relación negativa débil con el SCF.