Abstract
Judgments of learning (JOL) are often used to assess memory monitoring at encoding. Participants study a cue-target word pair (e.g., mouse-cheese) and are asked to rate the probability of correctly recalling the target in the presence of the cue at test (e.g., mouse -?). Prior research has shown that JOL accuracy is sensitive to perceptual cues. These cues can produce metamemory illusions in which JOLs overestimate memory, such as the font-size effect (Rhodes & Castel, 2008), which occurs when participants inflate JOLs for pairs presented in large versus small fonts without a concomitant increase to recall. The present study further tests the font-size effect and examines whether other perceptual manipulations can affect the correspondence between JOLs and recall. Experiments 1A and 1B were designed to replicate the font-size effect and test whether the effect extended to highlighted pairs that were related or unrelated in the same study list. Experiment 2A and 2B examined font size and highlighting effects on JOLs using only unrelated pairs. Finally, Experiment 3 tested whether Sans Forgetica—a perceptually disfluent font designed to improve memory—would result in inflated JOLs and/or recall. Large fonts similarly increased both JOLs and recall relative to small fonts, highlights had no effect on JOLs or recall, and Sans Forgetica font yielded a memory cost (though no effect on JOLs). Collectively, perceptually fluent and disfluent study pairs do not appear to inflate JOLs relative to subsequent recall.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Study materials and analyzed data are available via OSF (https://osf.io/3xwdr/). This study was completed as part of the Honors Thesis requirements for Trevor Perry.
References
Ball, B. H., Klein, K. N., & Brewer, G. A. (2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 336.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459.
Besken, M. (2016). Picture-perfect is not perfect for metamemory: Testing the perceptual fluency hypothesis with degraded images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1417.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205).
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 2(59–68).
Bodner, G. E., Taikh, A., & Fawcett, J. M. (2014). Assessing the costs and benefits of production in recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 149–154.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.
Castel, A. D., McCabe, D. P., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 107–111.
Earp, J. (2018). Q&A: Designing a font to help students remember key information.
Eskenazi, M. A., & Nix, B. (2021). Individual differences in the desirable difficulty effect during lexical acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(1), 45–52.
Fowler, R. L., & Barker, A. S. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 358.
Garcia, M. & Kornell, N. (2015). Collector [computer software]. Retrieved from https://github.com/gikeymarica/Collector. Accessed 3 April 2020.
Geller, J., Davis, S. D., & Peterson, D. J. (2020). Sans forgetica is not desirable for learning. Memory, 28(8), 957–967.
Halamish, V., Nachman, H., & Katzir, T. (2018). The effect of font size on children’s memory and metamemory. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1577.
Hanczakowski, M., Zawadzka, K., Pasek, T., & Higham, P. A. (2013). Calibration of metacognitive judgments: Insights from the underconfidence-with-practice effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.003
Hu, X., Li, T., Zheng, J., Su, N., Liu, Z., & Luo, L. (2015). How much do metamemory beliefs contribute to the font-size effect in judgments of learning? PLoS One, 10(11), e0142351.
Huff, M. J., Bodner, G. E., & Gretz, M. R. (2021). Distinctive encoding of a subset of DRM lists yields not only benefits, but also costs and spillovers. Psychological Research, 85, 280–290.
Jemstedt, A., Schwartz, B. L., & Jönsson, F. U. (2018). Ease-of-learning judgments are based on both processing fluency and beliefs. Memory, 26(6), 807–815.
Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187–194.
Kornell, N., Rhodes, M. G., Castel, A. D., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: Dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments. Psychological Science, 22(6), 787–794.
Maddox, G. B. (2016). Understanding the underlying mechanism of the spacing effect in verbal learning: A case for encoding variability and study-phase retrieval. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 684–706.
Masson, M. E. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 679–690.
Maxwell, N. P., & Huff, M. J. (2021). The deceptive nature of associative word pairs: Effects of associative direction on judgments of learning. Psychological Research, 85(4), 1757–1775.
McDaniel, M. A., & Butler, A. C. (2010). A contextual framework for understanding when difficulties are desirable. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert a. Bjork (pp. 175–198). Psychology Press.
Miele, D. B., Finn, B., & Molden, D. C. (2011). Does easily learned mean easily remembered?: It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 320–324.
Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12.
Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The delayed-JOL effect. Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407.
Price, J., & Harrison, A. (2017). Examining what prestudy and immediate judgments of learning reveal about the bases of metamemory judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 177–194.
Price, J., McElroy, K., & Martin, N. J. (2016). The role of font size and font style in younger and older adults’ predicted and actual recall performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 23(3), 366–388.
Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342.
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48.
Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615–625.
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348.
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 592–604.
Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553–558.
Su, N., Tongtong, L., Zheng, J., Hu, X., Fan, T., & Luo, L. (2018). How font size affects judgments of learning: Simultaneous mediating effect of item-specific beliefs about fluency and moderating effect of beliefs about font size and memory. PLoS One, 13, e0200888:1–e020088814.
Sungkhassettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973–978.
Susser, J. A., Mulligan, N. W., & Besken, M. (2013). The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs). Memory & Cognition, 41, 1000–1011.
Taylor, A., Sanson, M., Burnell, R., Wade, K. A., & Garry, M. (2020). Disfluent difficulties are not desirable difficulties: The (lack of) effect of sans Forgetica on memory. Memory, 28(7), 850–857.
Undorf, M., Zimdahl, M. F., & Bernstein, D. M. (2017). Perceptual fluency contributes to effects of stimulus size on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 293–304.
Wagenmakers, E. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804.
Wehr, T., & Wippich, W. (2004). Typography and color: Effects of salience and fluency on conscious recollective experience. Psychological Research, 69, 138–146.
Yang, C., Huang, T. S. T., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 99–110.
Yue, C. L., Storm, B. C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Highlighting and its relation to distributed study and students’ metacognitive beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 69–78.
Funding
There is no funding source.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All experiments reported were approved by the authors institutional review board.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(PDF 247 kb)
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maxwell, N.P., Perry, T. & Huff, M.J. Perceptually fluent features of study words do not inflate judgements of learning: evidence from font size, highlights, and Sans Forgetica font type. Metacognition Learning 17, 293–319 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09284-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09284-6