Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
Perceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALShanksUniversity College LondonAuthor noteAll data have been made publicly available via the Open Science Framework at https: osf.io 2zfve .Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chunhang Yang. Division of Psychology and Language Sciences. University College London. 26 Bedford Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL Way, London WC1HOAP. Email: chunliaiig.yang:l4£yicl.ac.uk.AcknowledgementsThis research was supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) awardedShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
to Chunliang Yang.We thank Jiawen Huang for his help in data collection, and Jolui Dunlosky and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL large than to small font size words, despite font size having no effect on retention, rhe effect is important because 11 spotlights a process dissociation between mclacognilivc judgments about memory and memory performance itself. Previous research has proposed a fluency theory to account for this Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALeffect, but this theory has been contradicted by a recent study which found no difference in response times (R Is) and hence fluency in a lexical deciShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
sion task between large and small words (Mueller. Dunlosky. Tauber. & Rhodes. Journal of Memory and Language. 70. 1-12. 2014). In the current researchPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALical decision tasks in Experiment 2. We show that lexical decision is an inappropriate instrument for measuring differences in perceptual fluency. The CID task, in contrast, provides direct evidence that the stimulus size effect on JOLs is substantially mediated by perceptual fluency. Experiment 3 f Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALound that fluency is at least as important as beliefs about font size in contributing to the font size effect on JOLs.Keywords: Perceptual fluency: JOShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
Ls; font size effect; stimulus size: continuous identification task2Perceptual fluency and font sizeThe font size effect on judgments of learning (JOLPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL. They instructed participants to study words in large (48-point) or small (18-point) font sizes. After studying each word, participants made a JOL to predict the likelihood they would remember that word. Participants gave significantly higher JOLs to large than to small words, yet at a later test, Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALrecall performance was equivalent for large and small words. The font size effect on JOLs is robust and has been replicated dozens of times (e.g.. BalShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
l. Klein. & Brewer. 2014: Besken. 2016: Hu et al.. 2015; Hu. Liu. Li. & Luo, 2016; Komell. Rhodes, Castel. & Tauber. 2011; F. Li, Xie, Li. & Li. 2015;Perceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALect is important because JOLs determine individuals' study strategies (Metcalfe & Finn. 2008; Yang. Potts. & Shanks. 2017b). and hence any process dissociation between JOLs and acmal memory performance can potentially induce inefficient study (e.g.. Tauber. Dunlosky. Rawson. Wahlheim. & Jacoby. 2013 Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL; Yang et al., 2017b: Yang. Sun. & Shanks. 2017). For example, an individual might study a textbook chapter for more or less time depending on whetherShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
it is written in a small or large font, even though font size is unlikely to affect retention of the chapter's content. From a theoretical perspectivPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALe been proposed to account for the font Size effect on JOLs. The first explanation is a belief theory, which postulates that people hold a priori beliefs that large words are easier to remember or more important than small words, and that they incorporate these beliefs into their JOLs. Research has Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALfound that perceived importance can moderate people's JOLs (Castel. 2007). Mueller et al. (2014) found that some people believe that large words are mShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
ore important than small words, and Rhodes and Castel (2008) proposed that participants might believe that a large font signals the importance of a stPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALproduce the font size effect on JOLs (Rhodes & Castel. 2008). Mueller et al. (2014) also found that some people believe large words are easier to remember, and therefore suggested that people apply this belief in forming their JOLs3Perceptual fluency and foul size(Mueller & Dunlosky, 2017). Moreover Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL. Hu et al. (2015) found that the font size effect on JOLs is significantly predicted by variability in people's beliefs about the difficulty of rememShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
bering large and small words. Collectively, these findings support the belief theory (based either on beliefs about importance or aboul case of remembPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL greater perceptual fluency than small words, rhe experience of fluency during encoding produces a subjectivefeelitig-of-krunving, and this subjective feeling acts as a basis for assessments about learning status (Korial & Bjork. 2006: Koriat & Ma’ayan. 2005; Mueller. Tauber. & Dunlosky. 2013; Undor Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALf. Zimdahl, & Bernstein, 2017). Previous studies have supplied convincing evidence that greater processing fluency produces higher JOLs - a fluency efShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
fect on JOLs (Ball el al.. 2014: Besken & Mulligan, 2013; Hertzog, Dunlosky, Robinson. & Kidder, 2003; Magreehan. Serra, Schwartz. & Narciss, 2016; UnPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL was conducted by Rhodes and Castel (2008). In their Experiment 6. some words were presented in a standard format (e.g.. computer) and others in a format with alternating lowercase and uppercase letters (e.g.. gArDe.W Rhodes and Castel (2008) obtained a font size effect on JOLs Hl lhe standard forma Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALt condition but not in the alternating format condition. They proposed that differences in perceptual fluency between large and small words were disruShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
pted in the alternating format condition. However. Mueller et al. (2014) argued that Rhodes and (’astel's (2008) Experiment 6 cannot provide unequivocPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL but alternating font words arc easier to remember than small alternating font words.Mueller et al. (2014) conducted a further study to test the fluency theory by employing a lexical decision task in their I Xpert ment 1. Words (e.g.. chicken) and non-words (e.g.. arage) were sequentially presented Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALin large or small font sizes. Participants were instructed lo decide, as quickly and accurately as they could, whether the presented item was a word oShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
r a non-word. Mueller Ct al. (2014) found no difference in response times (RTs) between large and small words, and hence4Perceptual fluency and font sPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALing because prior to Mueller et al.'s (2014) study, the general consensus amongst researchers was that perceptual fluency does underlie the font size effect on JOLs. and indeed many researchers had offered the font size effect on JOLs as evidence that perceptual fluency can affect JOLs (e.g.. Bjork. Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL Dunlosky. & Kornell. 2013; Diemand-Yauman. Oppenheimer. & Vaughan. 2011: Komell et al.. 2011: Miele et al.. 2011: Rhodes & Caste]. 2008). It is imporShanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
tant to note that Muller et al. (2014) did not completely reject the fluency theory. Instead, they suggested that their results were inconsistent withPerceptual fluency and font sizePerceptual Fluency Affects Judgments of Learning: The Font Size EffectChunliang Yang. Tina S.-T. Huang, and David R. S Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL published, researchers started to acknowledge that fluency may play no role in the font size effect on JOLs (e.g.. Ball et al., 2014: Finn & Tauber. 2015: p. Li. Jia. Li. & Li. 2016: Magreehan et al.. 2016: Mueller & Dunlosky, 2017; Mueller. Dunlosky. & Tauber, 2016: Susser. Jin. & Mulligan. 2016; Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINALSusser. Panitz. Buchm. & Mulligan. 2017; Undorf et al., 2017). Taking a more neutral position. Hu et al. (2015) claimed that “Although Mueller et al.Shanks_Yang et al. Fontsizeeffect_FINAL
(2014) suggest that fluency does not differ... There may be other types of fluency that differ significantly between large and small words" (p. 10).AsGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook