Predictions of one’s future memory performance—judgements of learning (JOLs)—are based on the cues that learners regard as diagnostic of memory performance. One of these cues is word frequency or how often words are experienced in the language. It is not clear, however, whether word frequency would affect JOLs when other cues are also available. The current study aims to close this gap by testing whether objective and subjective word frequency affect JOLs in the presence of font size as an additional cue. Across three experiments, participants studied words that varied in word frequency (Experiment 1: high and low objective frequency; Experiment 2: a whole continuum from high to low objective frequency; Experiment 3: high and low subjective and objective frequency) and were presented in a large (48pt) or a small (18pt) font size, made JOLs, and completed a free recall test. Results showed that people based their JOLs on both word frequency and font size. We conclude that word frequency is an important cue that affects metamemory even in multiple-cue situations.
AdelmanJ. S.BrownG. D.QuesadaJ. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x
2.
BalotaD. A.PilottiM.CorteseM. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition, 29(4), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200465
3.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.NeelyJ. H.NelsonD. L.SimpsonG. B.TreimanR. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
6.
BeggI.DuftS.LalondeP.MelnickR.SanvitoJ. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
7.
BenjaminA. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition, 31(2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194388
8.
BenjaminA. S.DiazM. (2008). Measurement of relative metamnemonic accuracy. In DunloskyJ.BjorkR. A. (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 73–94). Psychology Press.
BrunswikE. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago University Press.
11.
BrysbaertM.BuchmeierM.ConradM.JacobsA. M.BölteJ.BöhlA. (2011). The word frequency effect: A review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. Experimental Psychology, 58(5), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000123
12.
BrysbaertM.CorteseM. J. (2011). Do the effects of subjective frequency and age of acquisition survive better word frequency norms?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.503374
13.
BrysbaertM.ManderaP.KeuleersE. (2018). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417727521
DeeseJ. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046671
16.
DhamiM. K.HertwigR.HoffrageU. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 959–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.959
17.
DunloskyJ.MetcalfeJ. (2009). Metacognition. SAGE.
18.
DunloskyJ.MuellerM. L.TauberS. K. (2015). The contribution of processing fluency (and beliefs) to people’s judgments of learning. In LindsayD. S.KelleyC. M.YonelinasA. P.RoedigerH. L. III (Eds.), Remembering: Attributions, processes, and control in human memory—Part I (pp. 46–64). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315752808
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
20.
FiacconiC. M.DolloisM. A. (2020). Does word frequency influence judgments of learning (JOLs)? A meta-analytic review. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 74(4), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000206
21.
GigerenzerG.HoffrageU.KleinböltingH. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98(4), 506–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506
22.
GoodmanL. A.KruskalW. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268), 732–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281536
HalamishV.UndorfM. (2021). Accuracy, causes, and consequences of monitoring one’s own learning and memory. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 229(2), 87–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000439
25.
HammondK. R.HurschC. J.ToddF. J. (1964). Analyzing the components of clinical inference. Psychological Review, 71(6), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040736
26.
HammondK. R.StewartT. R. (Eds.) (2001). The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications. Oxford University Press.
27.
HeisterJ.WürznerK.-M.BubenzerJ.PohlE.HanneforthT.GeykenA.KlieglR. (2011). dlexDB: A lexical database for the psychological and linguistic research.Psychologische Rundschau, 62(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000029
28.
HourihanK. L.FraundorfS. H.BenjaminA. S. (2017). The influences of valence and arousal on judgments of learning and on recall. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13421-016-0646-3
29.
HuX.LiT.ZhengJ.SuN.LiuZ.LuoL. (2015). How much do metamemory beliefs contribute to the font-size effect in judgments of learning?PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0142351. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142351
30.
JiaX.LiP.LiX.ZhangY.CaoW.CaoL.LiW. (2016). The effect of word frequency on judgments of learning: Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01995
31.
KarelaiaN.HogarthR. M. (2008). Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 404–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.404
32.
KoriatA. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
33.
KoriatA. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In ZelazoP. D.MoscovitchM.ThompsonE. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). Cambridge University Press.
34.
KornellN.RhodesM. G.CastelA. D.TauberS. K. (2011). The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: Dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments. Psychological Science, 22(6), 787–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611407929
35.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
LohnasL. J.KahanaM. J. (2013). Parametric effects of word frequency in memory for mixed frequency lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1943–1946. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033669
38.
LunaK.Martín-LuengoB.AlbuquerqueP. B. (2018). Do delayed judgements of learning reduce metamemory illusions? A meta-analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(7), 1626–1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1343362
39.
MassonM. E. J.RotelloC. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman–Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: Implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014876
40.
MendesP. S.LunaK.AlbuquerqueP. B. (2019). Word frequency effects on judgments of learning: More than just beliefs. The Journal of General Psychology, 148, 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2019.1706073
41.
MendesP. S.LunaK.AlbuquerqueP. B. (2020). Experience matters: Effects of (in)congruent prompts about word frequency on judgments of learning. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228(4), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000423
42.
MonaghanP.ChangY. N.WelbourneS.BrysbaertM. (2017). Exploring the relations between word frequency, language exposure, and bilingualism in a computational model of reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.08.003
43.
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ.TauberS. K. (2016). The effect of identical word pairs on people’s metamemory judgments: What are contributions of processing fluency and beliefs about memory?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(4), 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1058404
44.
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ.TauberS. K.RhodesM. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory?Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007
45.
MuellerM. L.TauberS. K.DunloskyJ. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(2), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6
46.
NelsonT. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109
47.
NelsonT. O.NarensL. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26., pp. 125–141). Academic Press.
48.
OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
49.
PetersH. N. (1936). The relationship between familiarity of words and their memory value. The American Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416508
50.
PopovV.RederL. M. (2020). Frequency effects on memory: A resource-limited theory. Psychological Review, 127(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000161
51.
PriceJ.HarrisonA. (2017). Examining what prestudy and immediate judgments of learning reveal about the bases of metamemory judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.12.003
52.
PriceJ.McElroyK.MartinN. J. (2016). The role of font size and font style in younger and older adults’ predicted and actual recall performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 23(3), 366–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2015.1102194
53.
QuenéH.van den BerghH. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43(1–2), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2004.02.004
54.
RederL. M.LiuX. L.KeinathA.PopovV. (2016). Building knowledge requires bricks, not sand: The critical role of familiar constituents in learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0889-1
55.
RhodesM. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In DunloskyJ.TauberS. K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.4
56.
RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
57.
RhodesM. G.TauberS. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021705
58.
ShanksL. L.SerraM. J. (2014). Domain familiarity as a cue for judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0513-1
59.
StraussU.GrzybekP.AltmannG. (2007). Word length and word frequency. In GrzybekP. (Ed.), Contributions to the science of text and language (pp. 277–294). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4068-9
60.
SusserJ. A.MulliganN. W. (2015). The effect of motoric fluency on metamemory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1014–1019. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0768-1
61.
SusserJ. A.PanitzJ.BuchinZ.MulliganN. W. (2017). The motoric fluency effect on metamemory. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.002
62.
TatzJ. R.PeynircioğluZ. F. (2020). Judgments of learning in context: Backgrounds can both reduce and produce metamemory illusions. Memory & Cognition, 48(4), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00991-9
63.
TuckerL. R. (1964). A suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch, and by Hammond, Hursch, and Todd. Psychological Review, 71(6), 528–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047061
64.
TulvingE.KrollN. (1995). Novelty assessment in the brain and long-term memory encoding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(3), 387–390. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210977
65.
UndorfM.BröderA. (2020). Cue integration in metamemory judgements is strategic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(4), 629–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819882308
66.
UndorfM.BröderA. (2021). Metamemory for pictures of naturalistic scenes: Assessment of accuracy and cue utilization. Memory & Cognition, 49, 1405–1422. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01170-5
67.
UndorfM.SöllnerA.BröderA. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning. Memory and Cognition, 46(4), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0780-6
68.
UndorfM.ZimdahlM. F. (2019). Metamemory and memory for a wide range of font sizes: What is the contribution of perceptual fluency?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000571
69.
van HeuvenW. J. B.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). Subtlex-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
70.
VõM. L.-H.ConradM.KuchinkeL.UrtonK.HofmannM. J.JacobsA. M. (2009). The Berlin Affective Word List Reloaded (BAWL–R). Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 534–538. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.534
71.
WitherbyA. E.TauberS. K. (2017). The concreteness effect on judgments of learning: Evaluating the contributions of fluency and beliefs. Memory & Cognition, 45(4), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0681-0
