Vol.3 No.5 (September 2013)
ABR and Habitual Responding in the Self-Regulated Learning: Process Exclusively or Parallelly
In the process of self-regulated learning, learners are initiative to use strategies, self-monitoring and self-adjustment. Self-regulated learning is a lifelong learning skill. Study on the skill makes the people effectively to regulate learning and improve one’s learning efficiency. But the processing mechanism of self- regulated learning is controversial. In recent years, researchers propose that the self-regulation learning is influenced by agenda-based regulation (ABR) or habitual responding activated by value, difficulty, time con- straints and other factors. Later researchers put forward that self-regulated learning is influenced by ABR and habitual responding at the same time. In the future, researchers should continue to validate and improve the self-regulation learning of habitual responding and ABR.
付春林 , 李伟健 (2013) 自我调节学习中的议程调节与习惯性反应：独立加工抑或并行加工。 心理学进展， 3， 215-220. doi: 10.12677/AP.2013.35033
 方平(2003). 初中生自我调节学习发展特征及相关因素的研究. 北京: 首都师范大学.
 Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based moni- toring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 432- 447.
 Ariel, R., Al-Harthy, I., Was, C., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Habitual reading biases in the allocation of study time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1015-1021.
 Ariel, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2013). When do learners shift from habitual to agenda-based processes when selecting items for study? Memory & Cognition, 41, 416-428.
 Bargh, J. A. (2007). Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes. New York: Psychology Press.
 Barrett, L., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differ- ences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553-573.
 Castel, A. D. (2007). The adaptive and strategic use of memory by older adults: Evaluative processing and value-directed remembering. In A. S. Benjamin, & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Skill and strategy in memory use (Vol. 48, pp. 225-270). London: Academic Press.
 Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
 De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428-433.
 Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 56, 5-18.
 Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allo- cation of study time: Differential and sufficient aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 274-296.
 Dunlosky, J., & Ariel, R. (2011). The influence of agenda-based and habitual processes on item selection during study. Journal of Expe- rimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 899- 912.
 Dunlosky, J., & Connor, L. (1997). Age differences in the allocation of study time account for age differences in memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 25, 691-700.
 Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Training programs to improve learning in later adulthood: Helping older adults educate themselves. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 249-275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
 Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2004). Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study. Memory & Cognition, 32, 779-788.
 Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of rea- soning. Trends in Cog-nitive Sciences, 7, 454-459.
 Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1988). A cognitive model of planning. In A. M. Collins, & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 496-513). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
 Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2001).Individual differences in executive attention and the stroop. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
 Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate rela-tionships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 36-69.
 Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 609-622.
 Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 20, 1309-1312.
 Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3-19.
 Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 463-477.
 Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Di-rections in Psychological Science, 18, 159-163.
 Murphy, J., Hofacker, C., & Mizerski, R. (2006). Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com- munication, 11, 522-535.
 Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect”. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 676-686.
 Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe, & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elabora-tion-likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
 Shaki, S., Fischer, M., & Petrusic, W. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 328-331.
 Sobel, K. V., Gerrie, M. P., Poole, B. J., & Kane, M. J. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and visual search: The roles of top-down and bottom-up processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 840-845.
 Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204-221.
 Son, L. K., & Sethi, R. (2006). Metacognitive control and optimal learning. Cognitive Science, 30, 759-774.
 Souchay, C., & Isingrini, M. (2004). Age related differences in meta- cognitive control: Role of executive functioning. Brain and Cogni- tion, 56, 89-99.
 Teasdale, J. D. (1999). Metacognition, mindfulness and the modifica- tion of mood disorders. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 6, 146-155.
 Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024-1037.
 Van Reekum, C. M., & Scherer, K. R. (1997). Levels of processing for emotion-antecedent appraisal. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 259-300). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
 Waldron, S. M., Patrick, J., & Duggan, G. B. (2011). The inﬂuence of goal-state access cost on planning during problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 485-503.
 Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the REVERSE SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition & Culture, 5, 165- 190.