The effect of identical word pairs on people's metamemory judgments: What are the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs about memory?

Abstract

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are higher for identical pairs (dog–dog) than for related pairs (dog–cat). This identical effect may be mediated (a) by processing fluency (i.e., identical pairs are processed faster than related pairs) or (b) by a belief that identical pairs are better remembered or (c) by both factors. In the present work, we assessed the contribution of both factors. We evaluated whether a measure of processing fluency (i.e., self-paced study) mediated the relationship between pair type and JOLs (Experiment 1) and attempted to disrupt processing fluency using an AlTeRnAtInG presentation format (Experiment 2). We also evaluated whether judgments made in the absence of processing fluency demonstrated the identical effect (Experiment 3), and, finally, we had participants read a vignette about an experiment that included both pair types and estimate which pairs would be best remembered (Experiment 4). Evidence from all experiments converged on the conclusion that people's beliefs about how variables affect memory—and not differential fluency—best explain the identical effect, although we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that fluency plays a small role. The outcomes were consistent with the analytic-processing theory of JOLs—namely, when instructed to make JOLs, people adopt an analytic problem-solving approach that involves identifying variation across pairs that plausibly relate to memory and then use this variation to make JOLs.