Although many educational institutions allow students to resit exams, a recently proposed mathematical model suggests that this could lead to a dramatic reduction in study-time investment, especially in rational students. In the current study, we present a modification of this model in which we included some well-justified assumptions about learning and performance on multiple-choice tests, and we tested its predictions in two experiments in which participants were asked to invest fictional study time for a fictional exam. Consistent with our model, the prospect of a resit exam was found to promote lower investments of study time for a first exam and this effect was stronger for participants scoring higher on the cognitive reflection test. We also found that the negative effect of resit exams on study-time investment was attenuated when access to the resit was made uncertain by making it probabilistic or dependent on obtaining a minimal, non-passing grade for the first attempt. Taken together, these results suggest that offering students resit exams may compromise the achievement of learning goals, and they raise the more general implication that second chances promote risky behavior.

In accordance with a rational model of study-time investment, we previously found that the prospect of a resit exam leads to lower investments of fictional study-time for a first exam opportunity in an investment game utilizing simulated exams. In the current study, we investigated whether the depreciation of one’s first-exam investment reduces the resit effect. Specifically, we investigated study-time investments for a simulated multiple-choice exam in which 0, 50, or 100% of the initial study-time investment was lost before the resit exam. In accordance with our predictions, we found that the magnitude of the resit effect decreased as investment depreciation increased. This finding suggests that the negative effect of resit exams on study-time investment may be countered by creating conditions under which investment depreciation (i.e. forgetting) is expected to occur, for instance, by increasing the temporal interval between the first attempt and resit exam.

Previous studies have shown that the prospect of a resit opportunity lowers hypothetical study-time investments for a first exam, as compared to a singlechance exam (i.e., the resit effect). The present paper describes a first experiment in which we aimed to generalize this effect from hypothetical study-time investments to a learning task allowing for the optimization of actual study-time investments while participants studied pairs of pseudowords for a subsequent multiple-choice test, given either a single chance or two chances to pass. Against our expectations, the results of the experiment showed no resit effect for the amount of actual time participants spent studying the materials in the experimental learning task. To better allow for the optimization of study-time investments, the learning task was adapted for a second experiment to include an indication of passing probability. These results, however, also did not show a resit effect. A third experiment addressed whether it was the investment of actual time that led to this absence of a resit effect with the learning task. The results suggested, however, that it was most likely the lack of a priori deliberation that caused this absence of the effect. Taken together with findings from a fourth questionnaire study showing that students seem to take a resit prospect into account by indicating they would have studied more for an exam if the option to resit would not have been available, these findings lead us to argue that a resit prospect may primarily affect advance study-time allocation decisions.

Although many educational institutions allow students to resit exams, a recently proposed mathematical model suggests that this could lead to a dramatic reduction in study-time investment, especially in rational students. In the current study, we present a modification of this model in which we included some well-justified assumptions about learning and performance on multiple-choice tests, and we tested its predictions in two experiments in which participants were asked to invest fictional study time for a fictional exam. Consistent with our model, the prospect of a resit exam was found to promote lower investments of study time for a first exam and this effect was stronger for participants scoring higher on the cognitive reflection test. We also found that the negative effect of resit exams on study-time investment was attenuated when access to the resit was made uncertain by making it probabilistic or dependent on obtaining a minimal, non-passing grade for the first attempt. Taken together, these results suggest that offering students resit exams may compromise the achievement of learning goals, and they raise the more general implication that second chances promote risky behavior.

Previous studies have shown that the prospect of a resit opportunity lowers fictional study-time investments for a first exam, as compared to a single-chance exam (i.e., the resit effect). The present paper describes two experiments in which we aimed to generalize this effect from fictional study-time investments to a task where participants invested real time to study pairs of pseudo words for a subsequent multiple-choice test, given either a single chance or two chances to pass. Against our expectations based on previous results, the results of the current experiments showed no resit effect for the amount of time participants spent studying the materials. Taken together with previous findings and novel findings from a questionnaire study also reported in this paper, this finding leads us to argue that a resit prospect may primarily affect advance study-time allocation decisions.