Ease-of-learning judgments are based on both processing fluency and beliefs
Abstract
Processing fluency influences many types of judgments. Some metacognitive research suggests that the influence of processing fluency may be mediated by participants' beliefs. The current study explores the influence of processing fluency and beliefs on ease-of-learning (EOL) judgments. In two experiments (Exp 1: n = 94; Exp 2: n = 146), participants made EOL judgments on 24 six-letter concrete nouns, presented in either a constant condition (high fluency) with upper-case letters (e.g., BUCKET) or an alternating condition (low fluency) with mixed upper- and lower-case letters (e.g., bUcKeT). After judging words individually, participants studied the words and completed a free recall test. Finally, participants indicated what condition they believed made the words more likely to be learned. Results show constant-condition words were judged as more likely to be learned than alternating condition words, but the difference varied with beliefs. Specifically, the difference was biggest when participants believed the constant condition made words more likely to be learned, followed by believing there was no difference, and then believing the alternating condition made words more likely to be learned. Thus, we showed that processing fluency has a direct effect on EOL judgments, but the effect is moderated by beliefs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Rats are preferred for behavioral, memory, and cognitive research due to their physiological similarities to humans and their high learning capacity.
“Rats are preferred for behavioral, memory, and cognitive research due to their physiological similarities to humans and their high learning capacity [17–20].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 24
- Authors
- Jemstedt, A., Schwartz, B. L., & Jönsson, F. U.
- Affiliations
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Florida International University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jemstedt, Andreas
- Venue
- Memory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-12-15
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 807-815
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- OpenAlex
- W2772573303
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Memory (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- processing fluency, belief, metacognition, free recall, word learning, case variation, concrete nouns
- MeSH terms
- Metacognition, Adult, Female, Humans, Judgment, Learning, Male, Mental Recall, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review