Abstract
Previous research has shown that word frequency affects judgments of learning (JOLs). Specifically, people give higher JOLs for high-frequency (HF) words than for low-frequency (LF) words. However, the exact mechanism underlying this effect is largely unknown. The present study replicated and extended previous work by exploring the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs to the word frequency effect. In Experiment 1, participants studied HF and LF words and made immediate JOLs. The findings showed that participants gave higher JOLs for HF words than for LF ones, reflecting the word frequency effect. In Experiment 2a (measuring the encoding fluency by using self-paced study time) and Experiment 2b (disrupting perceptual fluency by presenting words in an easy or difficult font style), we evaluated the contribution of processing fluency. The findings of Experiment 2a revealed no significant difference in self-paced study time between HF and LF words. The findings of Experiment 2b showed that the size of word frequency effect did not decrease or disappear even when presenting words in a difficult font style. In Experiment 3a (a questionnaire-based study) and Experiment 3b (making pre-study JOLs), we evaluated the role of beliefs in this word frequency effect. The results of Experiment 3a showed that participants gave higher estimates for HF as compared to LF words. That is, they estimated that hypothetical participants would better remember the HF words. The results of Experiment 3b showed that participants gave higher pre-study JOLs for HF than for LF words. These results across experiments suggested that people’s beliefs, not processing fluency, contribute substantially to the word frequency effect on JOLs. However, considering the validation of the indexes reflecting the processing fluency in the current study, we cannot entirely rule out the possible contribution of processing fluency. The relative contribution of processing fluency and beliefs to word frequency effect and the theoretical implications were discussed.
Highlights
Judgments of learning (JOLs), which refers to people’s prediction about the likelihood of remembering studied information, has been a core issue of investigation for researchers for over four decades (Koriat, 1997; Soderstrom and McCabe, 2011; Undorf and Erdfelder, 2011, 2015; Besken and Mulligan, 2013; Mueller et al, 2013, 2014)
The goal of the current experiments was to explore the role of processing fluency and beliefs in mediating the relationship between word frequency and JOLs
In Experiment 1, we confirmed the existence of the word frequency effect on JOLs, where people gave higher JOLs for HF words than for LF words (Begg et al, 1989; Benjamin, 2003)
Summary
Judgments of learning (JOLs), which refers to people’s prediction about the likelihood of remembering studied information, has been a core issue of investigation for researchers for over four decades (Koriat, 1997; Soderstrom and McCabe, 2011; Undorf and Erdfelder, 2011, 2015; Besken and Mulligan, 2013; Mueller et al, 2013, 2014). Previous studies have confirmed that many cues and heuristics can influence JOLs (for a review, see Koriat, 2007), but the mechanisms underlying the effects of these cues are a core and current issue to researchers (Soderstrom and McCabe, 2011; Susser and Mulligan, 2014; Undorf and Erdfelder, 2015). The results showed that participants predicted higher rate of recognition for HF words than LF words, suggesting that the reliance on ease of fluency or familiarity made participants predict higher recognition performance for HF words during study. Susser and Mulligan (2014), failed to detect the word frequency effect on JOLs. The results showed that participants predicted higher rate of recognition for HF words than LF words, suggesting that the reliance on ease of fluency or familiarity made participants predict higher recognition performance for HF words during study. Further research will be needed to provide more supportive evidence for this effect
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
