Do Beliefs About Font Size Affect Retrospective Metamemory Judgments in Addition to Prospective Judgments?

Abstract

Abstract. Beliefs about how memory works explain several effects on prospective metamemory judgments (e.g., the effect of font size on judgments of learning; JOLs). Less is known about the effect of beliefs on retrospective judgments (i.e., confidence). Here, we tested whether font size also affects confidence ratings and whether beliefs play a similar role in confidence than in JOLs. In two experiments, participants studied words in small and large size, rated JOLs, and completed a font-size test in which they indicated the font size at study and a standard old/new recognition test. The results confirmed that font size affected both JOLs and confidence ratings. The presentation of the counter-belief that memory is better for words in small font size in Experiment 2 and the analyses of confidence for participants who did not believe that large fonts improved memory suggested that the effect of font size on confidence was based on beliefs. This research shows that the debate on theory-based and experience-based factors should not be limited to prospective metamemory judgments but also encompass retrospective judgments.

Den mørke side af semantisk kontekst [the dark side of semantic context]: Semantic context boosts people’s confidence in their ability to comprehend Danish.

“…These findings also add to the literature showing that presenting the same information to people in different ways can change people’s calibrations of their own learning, performance, and abilities. For instance, students draw on feelings of ease as evidence of learning—but those feelings of ease can inflate students’ evaluations of their own skills—as a result, they invest less time and effort during learning (Dreisbach & Fischer, 2011; Luna & Albuquerque, 2022; see, for a review, Chang & Brainerd, 2022). If semantic context eases processing of new information that people misattribute as evidence of their own skill, they may invest less time in their learning, potentially leading to poorer learning outcomes.…”