Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions.

The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory?

Words printed in a larger 48-point font are judged to be more memorable than words printed in a smaller 18-point font, although font size does not affect actual memory. To clarify the basis of this font size effect on metamemory and memory, 4 experiments investigated how presenting words in 48 (Experiment 1) or 4 (Experiments 2 to 4) font sizes between 6 point and 500 point affected judgments of learning (JOLs) and recall performance. Response times in lexical decision tasks were used to measure perceptual fluency. In all experiments, perceptual fluency was lower for words presented in very small and very large font sizes than for words presented in intermediate font sizes. In contrast, JOLs increased monotonically with font size, even beyond the point where a large font impaired perceptual fluency. Assessments of people's metacognitive beliefs about font size revealed that the monotonic increase in JOLs was not due to beliefs masking perceptual fluency effects (Experiment 3). Also, JOLs still increased across the whole range of font sizes when perceptual fluency was made salient at study (Experiment 4). In all experiments but Experiment 4, recall performance increased with increasing font size, although to a lesser extent than JOLs. Overall, the current study supports the idea that metacognitive beliefs underlie font size effects in metamemory. As important, it reveals that people's font size beliefs have some accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are assessments of how well materials have been learned. Although a wide body of literature has demonstrated a reliable correlation between memory performance and JOLs, relatively little is known about the nature of this link. Here, we investigate the relationship between JOLs and the memory retrieval processes engaged on a subsequent memory test. Participants first studied cue-target word pairs and assigned JOLs to each. Later, memory for the cue word in each pair was assessed using an old/new recognition memory task, and electrophysiological measures of familiarity and recollection were examined. Recognition accuracy was superior for materials given high rather than low JOLs. Analysis of event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed that for both high and low JOL items, successful recognition elicited correlates of familiarity (the mid-frontal effect) and recollection (the left-parietal effect). Importantly, however, the magnitude of the familiarity correlate was equal for high and low JOL items, whereas the magnitude of the recollection correlate was significantly larger for items given high JOLs. These findings demonstrate that JOLs made at study correlate with memory retrieval at test-but that this correlation is specific to recollection. The electrophysiological data support the broader view that participants focus on contextual cues when making JOLs, which may later aid recollection.

The font size effect is a metamemory illusion in which larger-font items produce higher judgments of learning (JOLs) but not better memory, relative to smaller-font items. We conducted meta-analyses to determine what is currently known about how font size affects JOLs and memory accuracy. In addition, we implemented both univariate and multivariate meta-regressions to isolate the moderators of JOL effects and memory effects. The results revealed a small-to-moderate effect of font size on JOLs. There was also a small but significant effect of font size on memory. This suggests that JOLs and memory accuracy both increase with font size, rather than being completely dissociated. Moreover, JOL-memory dissociation only occurred when font size ranged between very small and intermediate. Our working explanation is that the memory effects of font size are tied to (dis)fluency, but its JOL effects are not. Some boundary conditions were identified for font size effects on both JOLs and memory. Specifically, larger font sizes only reliably increased both JOLs and memory accuracy (a) when font sizes ranged from intermediate to very large, (b) when study materials were unrelated word lists, (c) when JOLs were solicited immediately after encoding, and (d) when study time was relatively brief.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-021-09287-3.

Items presented in large font are rated with higher judgments of learning (JOLs) than those presented in small font. According to current explanations of this phenomenon in terms of processing fluency or implicit beliefs, this effect should be present no matter the type of material under study. However, we hypothesized that the linguistic cues present in sentences may prevent using font size as a cue for JOLs. Experiment 1, with short sentences, showed the standard font-size effect on JOLs, and Experiment 2, with pairs of longer sentences, showed a reduced effect. These results suggest that linguistic factors do not prevent font size from being used for JOLs. However, Experiment 3, with both short and long sentences, showed an effect of font size only for the former and not the latter condition, suggesting that the greater amount of to-be-remembered information eliminated the font-size effect. In Experiment 4, we tested a mechanism to explain this result and manipulated cognitive load using the dot-memory task. The short sentences from Experiments 1 and 3 were used, and the results replicated the font-size effect only in the low-cognitive load condition. Our results are consistent with the idea that perceptual information is used to make JOLs only with materials such as words, word pairs, or short sentences, and that the increased cognitive load required to process longer sentences prevents using font size as a cue for JOLs.

ABSTRACTWords presented in larger font size are considered more memorable and rated with higher judgments of learning (JOLs). One explanation for this phenomenon is that people believe that font size affects memory. However, it is not clear why people hold this belief. One alternative is that font size represents importance, with larger fonts implying more relevant information. More important information is judged as more memorable and is, in fact, better remembered. In Experiments 1 and 2 we presented words in small (18 points) and extra-large font (250 points) and found higher JOLs and higher judgments of importance with extra-large fonts. A mediation analysis showed that importance accounted for 21–23% of the effect of font size on JOLs. In Experiment 3, we tested whether processing fluency was higher with the extra-large font. In a lexical decision task, participants were slower at detecting words and non-words with extra-large than small font, which is the opposite of what the processing fluency hypothesis predicts. This result shows that the font-size effect persists even in conditions in which perceived fluency should be lower. In sum, this research explained the belief that font size affects memory because words in larger fonts are considered more important.

Previous studies have suggested that perceptual information regarding to-be-remembered words in the study phase affects the accuracy of judgement of learning (JOL). However, few have investigated whether the perceptual information in the JOL phase influences JOL accuracy. This study examined the influence of cue word perceptual information in the JOL phase on immediate and delayed JOL accuracy through changes in cue word font size. In Experiment 1, large-cue word pairs had significantly higher mean JOL magnitude than small-cue word pairs in immediate JOLs and higher relative accuracy than small-cue pairs in delayed JOLs, but font size had no influence on recall performance. Experiment 2 increased the JOL time, and mean JOL magnitude did not reliably differ for large-cue compared with small-cue pairs in immediate JOLs. However, the influence on relative accuracy still existed in delayed JOLs. Experiment 3 increased the familiarity of small-cue words in the delayed JOL phase by adding a lexical decision task. The results indicated that cue word font size no longer affected relative accuracy in delayed JOLs. The three experiments in our study indicated that the perceptual information regarding cue words in the JOL phase affects immediate and delayed JOLs in different ways.

Past research has shown that the perceptual characteristics of studied items (e.g., font size) lead to a metamemory illusion, and that delayed judgements of learning (JOLs) are better predictors of memory performance than immediate JOLs. Here, we tested whether delayed JOLs could reduce or eliminate the effect of perceptual characteristics on JOLs and restudy decisions. We adopted a meta-analytic approach and analysed the results of 28 experiments in which participants' studied items were presented in either large or small font. JOLs and, sometimes, restudy decisions were collected either immediately or after a delay. Finally, participants completed a memory test. The results of the meta-analyses confirmed the effect of the font size on JOLs and restudy decisions. The delayed procedures reliably reduced the effect of perceptual characteristics on JOLs, but the effect was still significant after a delay. For restudy decisions, delayed procedures only reduced numerically the effect. Surprisingly, the meta-analysis also showed a very subtle memory advantage for items presented in large font over small font, although no individual study showed a significant difference and the overall effect size was small. One plausible explanation is that after a delay, information about font size is not available for some items, causing a reduction in the effect. Moreover, our results suggest that the dissociation between memory and metamemory reported previously may not be dissociation at all, but a mistmatched effect of font size on memory and metamemory.

Prior work has demonstrated that the perceptual features of visually presented stimuli can have a strong influence on predictions of memory performance, even when those features are unrelated to recall (Rhodes & Castel, 2008). The present study examined whether this finding would hold in an auditory domain and influence study-choice allocation. Participants listened to words that varied in volume, made judgments of learning (JOLs) for each item, and were then administered a test of free recall. In Experiment 1, we showed that JOLs were influenced by volume, with loud words given higher JOLs than quiet words, and that volume had no influence on recall, illustrating a metacognitive illusion based on auditory information. In Experiment 2, we extended these findings to control processes and showed that participants were more likely to choose to restudy quiet words than loud words. These findings indicate that highly accessible auditory information is integrated into JOLs and restudy choices, even when this information does not influence actual memory performance.

Previous studies found that metamemory beliefs dominate the font size effect on judgments of learning (JOLs). However, few studies have investigated whether beliefs about font size contribute to the font size effect in circumstances of multiple cues. The current study aims to fill this gap. Experiment 1 adopted a 2 (font size: 70 pt vs. 9 pt) * 2 (word frequency (WF): high vs. low) within-subjects design. The results showed that beliefs about font size did not mediate the font size effect on JOLs when multiple cues (font size and WF) were simultaneously provided. Experiment 2 further explored whether WF moderates the contribution of beliefs about font size to the font size effect, in which a 2 (font size: 70 pt vs. 9 pt, as a within-subjects factor) * 2 (WF: high vs. low, as a between-subjects factor) mixed design was used. The results showed that the contribution of beliefs about font size to the font size effect was present in a pure list of low-frequency words, but absent in a pure list of high-frequency words. Lastly, a meta-analysis showed evidence supporting the proposal that the contribution of beliefs about font size to the font size effect on JOLs is moderated by WF. Even though numerous studies suggested beliefs about font size play a dominant role in the font size effect on JOLs, the current study provides new evidence suggesting that such contribution is conditional. Theoretical implications are discussed.

According to the principle of inverse effectiveness (PIE), weaker responses to information in one modality (i.e., unisensory) benefit more from additional information in a second modality (i.e., multisensory; Meredith & Stein, 1986). We suggest that the PIE may also inform whether perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning (JOLs). If JOLs follow the PIE, the differences in JOLs for multisensory and unisensory items should increase as the unisensory study items become harder to perceive. That is, an influence of perceptual fluency should prompt a similar, interactive pattern across perceptual responses and JOLs. In 3 experiments, we systematically varied the signal intensity or noise in 1 modality to examine how responses might change with the inclusion of information in a second modality. In Experiment 1, written words in several font sizes were sometimes accompanied by spoken equivalents. In Experiments 2 and 3, spoken words in various background noise levels were sometimes accompanied by visual speech articulations. Consistent with the PIE, the multisensory benefits in response time and/or correct identification increased as responses to unisensory information decreased. Also, the multisensory formats received higher JOLs than the unisensory formats; however, unlike the predictions from PIE, this difference did not increase as study items became harder to perceive. Experiment 3 extended this finding to participants' explicit beliefs. In multisensory settings, JOLs may rely more on theory- than data-driven processes. We suggest that broadly defined processing fluency may always contribute to JOLs, but, regarding perceptual information, JOLs appear to track perceptual attributes rather than perceptual fluency. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Examining what prestudy and immediate judgments of learning reveal about the bases of metamemory judgments

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.

ABSTRACTMany studies have found the font size of to-be-remembered words has a significant influence on judgments of learning (JOLs). However, few studies have investigated whether JOLs are affected by the mental imagery size of to-be-remembered words, even when the font sizes themselves are kept identical in study materials. This study investigated whether the visual mental imagery size influences the participants’ JOLs and what the underlying mechanisms are. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants learned words with identical font sizes, mentally generated large or small imageries and then made JOLs. We found that JOLs under the large imagery condition were significantly higher than those under the small imagery condition, but actual recall performance exhibited no significant difference. In Experiment 3, participants pressed a button immediately after mental imagery generation and showed that it took significantly longer to generate large imageries than to generate small imageries, and the difference in JOLs between two conditions was no longer significant. In Experiment 4, we used a questionnaire to investigate the contribution of beliefs and found that participants believed large imageries were easier to remember. These findings indicate that imagery size has a significant impact on JOLs, in which beliefs may play a leading role.

Evidence shows that the font size of study items significantly influences judgments of learning (JOLs) and that people’s JOLs are generally higher for larger words than for smaller words. Previous studies have suggested that font size influences JOLs in a belief-based way. However, few studies have directly examined how much people’s beliefs contribute to the font-size effect in JOLs. This study investigated the degree to which font size influenced JOLs in a belief-based way. In Experiment 1, one group of participants (learners) studied words with different font sizes and made JOLs, whereas another group of participants (observers) viewed the learners' study phase and made JOLs for the learners. In Experiment 2, participants made both JOLs and belief-based recall predictions for large and small words. Our results suggest that metamemory beliefs play an important role in the font-size effect in JOLs.