Association and dissociation between judgments of learning and memory: A Meta-analysis of the font size effect

Abstract

The font size effect is a metamemory illusion in which larger-font items produce higher judgments of learning (JOLs) but not better memory, relative to smaller-font items. We conducted meta-analyses to determine what is currently known about how font size affects JOLs and memory accuracy. In addition, we implemented both univariate and multivariate meta-regressions to isolate the moderators of JOL effects and memory effects. The results revealed a small-to-moderate effect of font size on JOLs. There was also a small but significant effect of font size on memory. This suggests that JOLs and memory accuracy both increase with font size, rather than being completely dissociated. Moreover, JOL-memory dissociation only occurred when font size ranged between very small and intermediate. Our working explanation is that the memory effects of font size are tied to (dis)fluency, but its JOL effects are not. Some boundary conditions were identified for font size effects on both JOLs and memory. Specifically, larger font sizes only reliably increased both JOLs and memory accuracy (a) when font sizes ranged from intermediate to very large, (b) when study materials were unrelated word lists, (c) when JOLs were solicited immediately after encoding, and (d) when study time was relatively brief. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-021-09287-3.

Perceptual contrast reduces the judgments of learning of small‐font words and increases the judgments of learning of large‐font words compared with the no‐contrast conditions

“…Unlike many previous studies that showed no significant relationship between font size and memory (e.g., Mueller et al, 2014;Rhodes & Castel, 2008;Susser et al, 2013), this study found that large-font words had higher memory recall than small ones. This result was consistent with recent studies and meta-analyses (Chang & Brainerd, 2022;Halamish, 2018;Luna et al, 2018;2019;Undorf & Zimdahl, 2019). In both experiments, this study demonstrated reliable effects of JOLs and memory recall increasing with font size.…”

“…In both experiments, this study demonstrated reliable effects of JOLs and memory recall increasing with font size. In some details of the experimental design, our experiments coincided with the factors summarized by Chang and Brainerd (2022). These factors are conducive to observing that large fonts have a better memory recall than small ones, such as using a reasonable range of font sizes, learning unrelated word lists, adopting an immediate JOL task, and having brief study time.…”

“…Many studies have replicated this phenomenon (e.g., Blake & Castel, 2018; Hu et al, 2015; Kornell et al, 2011; Luna et al, 2019; McDonough & Gallo, 2012; Mueller et al, 2014; Price & Harrison, 2017; Su et al, 2018; Susser et al, 2013; Tatz & Peynircioğlu, 2020; Undorf et al, 2018). However, a few recent studies and meta‐analyses have shown that font size also affects memory (Chang & Brainerd, 2022; Halamish, 2018; Luna et al, 2018; 2019). These results may indicate that memory and metamemory regarding font size are not always dissociated.…”

“…However, other studies did not support this result (Mueller et al, 2014; Su et al, 2018). These contradictory results may be due to a lack of standardized fluency measures across studies (Chang & Brainerd, 2022).…”

“…Other studies found a U‐shaped relationship between font size and memory (Halamish, 2018; Undorf & Zimdahl, 2019), that is, memory was better for very small and very large fonts than for intermediate ones (e.g., memory was better for 5 and 48 pt words than for 18 pt words, better for words below 17 pt and above 161 pt than for 17–161 pt words, and better for 9 and 294 pt words than for 29 pt words). In a recent meta‐analysis, Chang and Brainerd (2022) found a small but significant font‐size effect on memory, that is, memory increases with font size. This effect was reliable when font sizes ranged from intermediate (17–161 pt) to very large (above 161 pt), when study materials were unrelated word lists, when JOLs were made immediately after learning, and when study time was relatively brief.…”