Students often gauge their performance before and after an exam, usually in the form of rough grade estimates or general feelings. Are these estimates accurate? Should they form the basis for decisions about study time, test-taking strategies, revisions, subject mastery, or even general competence? In two studies, undergraduates took a real multiple-choice exam, described their general beliefs and feelings, tracked their performance for each question, and noted any revisions or possible revisions. Beliefs formed after the exams were poor predictors of performance. In contrast, real-time metacognitive monitoring -measured by confidence ratings for each individual question -accurately predicted performance and were a much better decisional guide. Measuring metacognitive monitoring also allowed us to examine the process of revising an answer. Should a test-taker rely on their first choice or revise in the face of uncertainty? Experience seems to show that first instincts are correct. The decision-making literature calls this the first-instinct fallacy, based on extensive analysis of revisions, and recommends revising more. However, whereas revisions have been analyzed in great detail, previous studies did not analyze the efficacy of sticking with an original choice. We found that both revising and sticking resulted in significantly more correct than incorrect outcomes, with real-time metacognition predicting when each was most appropriate.Keywords Metacognition . Metamemory . Decision making . Exam revising . First-instinct fallacy When college students encounter an exam question that causes uncertainty, they recognize their uncertainty and use this metacognitive monitoring to control their behaviors. They might try to think about the question in a new way, decide to move on to another question, or seek out Metacognition Learning

This study experimentally tested whether individuals have a tendency to associate attractive voices with attractive faces and, alternately, unattractive voices with unattractive faces. Participants viewed pairings of facial photographs of attractive and unattractive individuals and had listened to attractive and unattractive voice samples and were asked to indicate which facial picture they thought was more likely to be the speaker of the voice heard. Results showed that there was an overall tendency to associate attractive voices with attractive faces and unattractive voices with unattractive faces, suggesting that a “what-sounds-beautiful-looks-beautiful” stereotype exists. Interestingly, there was an even stronger propensity to pair unattractive voices to unattractive faces than for the attractive voice–face matching.