Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40459686›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2025

Was the study time allocation based on expectation-maximization in value-test likelihood tradeoff situation?

Hui Xu, Yue Chu, Xiuya Li, Ruoyu Hou, Weihai Tang, Xiping Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hui XuFaculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, 300387, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4461-9387
Yue ChuFaculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, 300387, China.
Xiuya LiFaculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, 300387, China.
Ruoyu HouFaculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, 300387, China.
Weihai TangSchool of Sociology, University of Sanya, 191 Xueyuan Road, Jiyang District, Sanya, 572022, Hainan Province, China.
Xiping LiuSchool of Sociology, University of Sanya, 191 Xueyuan Road, Jiyang District, Sanya, 572022, Hainan Province, China. lxp3771@sina.com.

Funding

Tianjin Normal University Research Innovation Project for Postgraduate Students 2022KYCX044ZTianjin Research Innovation Project for Postgraduate Students 2021YJSB326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When preparing for entrance exams, learners often face limited study time and need to allocate it by making trade-offs among items with varying combinations of scores and test likelihoods. This study explored how learners allocate study time under time constraints by establishing a trade-off situation with three types of items: low score-high test likelihood, high score-low likelihood, and medium score-medium likelihood. The learners needed to allocate study time to the items. Experiment 1 found that participants allocated the most study time to medium score-medium likelihood items rather than to those with the highest scores or likelihood. They also allocated equal time to low score-high likelihood and high score-low likelihood items despite their differing expected scores. It suggests that under short time constraints, learners did not rely solely on expected scores to allocate study time. In actual learning processes, the influence of difficulty cannot be overlooked. Therefore, Experiment 2 examined whether item difficulty affected the allocation strategy. Results indicated that even with varying difficulty levels, learners did not base their decisions entirely on expected scores. To rule out the possibility that the 5-second time constraint was too short to allocate study time based on expected utility, Experiment 3 extended the study time but found that learners still did not allocate time according to expected utility under longer time constraints. It suggests that learners consider both scores and test likelihoods; however, their allocation process is not completely based on the expected scores. These findings contradict the expected utility theory.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLearningAdultFemaleHumansMaleTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.