Finding the limits of the metacognitive illusion: Utility of font size variations in learning.

Although perceptual information is utilized to judge size or depth, little work has investigated whether such information is used to make memory predictions. The present study examined how the font size of to-be-remembered words influences predicted memory performance. Participants studied words for a free-recall test that varied in font size and made judgments of learning (JOLs) for each item. JOLs were influenced by font size, as larger font sizes were given higher JOLs, whereas little relationship was evident between font size and recall. The effect was modified when other, more valid, sources of information (e.g., associative strength) were available when JOLs were made and persisted despite experience with multiple study-test sessions, use of a forgetting scale to assess predictions, and explicit warning of participants that font size has little effect on memory performance. When ease of reading was manipulated, such that large font size words were made less fluent, the effect was eliminated. Thus, highly accessible perceptual cues can strongly influence JOLs, likely via encoding fluency, and this effect can lead to metacognitive illusions

The font size effect refers to the metacognitive illusion that larger fonts lead to higher judgments of learning (JOLs) but not better recall. Prior studies demonstrated robust JOL effects of font size under conditions of intra-item relation (i.e., cue-target relatedness within a word pair), even though intra-item relation is a more diagnostic cue than font size. However, it remains an open question whether the JOL effects of font size persist under conditions of inter-item relation (i.e., relations across items on a single-word list). In the current study, we examined the JOL and recall effects of font size when font size and inter-item relation were factorially manipulated in three JOL-recall experiments. Additionally, to manipulate the salience of inter-item relation, we presented related and unrelated lists in a blocked manner in Experiment 1 but in a mixed manner in Experiments 2 and 3. Our results showed that the JOL effects of font size are moderated or eliminated when inter-item relation is manipulated simultaneously with font size. Moreover, the smaller font led to better recall for related lists but not for unrelated lists across all three experiments. Therefore, our results demonstrate that individual cues may not be integrated with equal weight, and there can be a trade-off between item-specific and relational processing during the JOL process. Additionally, highlighting key information with larger fonts may not be optimal with related items.

Predictions about memory involve the use of metacognition, and metacognition can rely on various cues. The present study investigated metacognition and recall performance when to-be-remembered words differed in font size and emotional valence, to determine what cues are utilised when making metacognitive judgments. Participants were presented with lists of words varying in font size (small and large) and emotional valence (negative and neutral) and were asked to remember as many words as possible for a later recall test while engaging in item-level metacognitive assessments. Specifically, after studying each word, participants either made only judgments of learning (JOLs, Experiment 1) or both JOLs and restudy judgments (Experiment 2). Across experiments, results revealed that while JOLs were sensitive to both font size and emotional valence, restudy judgments were mostly sensitive to emotional valence, and participants’ metacognitive assessments mapped onto memory performance generally for emotional words. Additionally, we found that the effect of font size on metacognition and memory was robust to experience-based learning. Together, the current study extends our understanding of how emotion and font size affect metacognition (monitoring and control) and memory and suggests that when presented with multiple cues, certain diagnostic cues can be harnessed to mitigate metacognitive illusions.