title: The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs).
abstract: The perceptual fluency hypothesis proposes that items that are easier to perceive at study will be given higher memorability ratings, as compared with less fluent items. However, prior research has examined this metamemorial cue primarily using mixed-list designs. Furthermore, certain memory effects are moderated by the design (mixed list vs. pure list) used to present stimuli. The present study utilized mixed as well as pure lists to assess whether judgments of learning based on perceptual fluency are relative or absolute and whether people are sensitive to differences in recall produced by variation in list composition. Using font size and generation manipulations, Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the effect of perceptual fluency on metamemory is relative in nature, occurring only in mixed lists. Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that metamemory is insensitive to the effect of list composition on recall. These findings are consistent with the assumptions of Koriat's (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 126: 349-370, 1997) cue-utilization framework, that JOLs reflect a comparative process and are insensitive to cues pertaining to conditions of learning.
authors: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Davie Hall 346, CB#3270, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-3270, USA, josusser@unc.edu.
authors: Jonathan A
authors: JA
authors: Susser
authors: Neil W
authors: NW
authors: Mulligan
authors: Miri
authors: M
authors: Besken
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D011939:Mental Recall / Q000502:physiology*; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D011897:Random Allocation; D012107:Research Design; D012858:Size Perception / Q000502:physiology; D055815:Young Adult
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Feb;14(1):107-11
references: 17546739
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Mar;31(2):187-94
references: 15755238
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Apr;15(2):237-55
references: 18488637
references: Mem Cognit. 1991 Sep;19(5):487-97
references: 1956309
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Mar;127(1):55-68
references: 9503651
references: Mem Cognit. 2013 Jan;41(1):28-35
references: 22915315
references: Psychol Sci. 2011 Mar;22(3):320-4
references: 21289372
references: Mem Cognit. 1989 Sep;17(5):563-71
references: 2796741
references: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2009 Aug;13(3):219-35
references: 19638628
references: Mem Cognit. 2001 Mar;29(2):222-33
references: 11352205
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 May;28(3):541-54
references: 12018506
references: Psychol Bull. 1984 Jan;95(1):109-33
references: 6544431
references: Mem Cognit. 2008 Mar;36(2):416-28
references: 18426070
references: Mem Cognit. 1993 Jan;21(1):34-40
references: 8433645
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Dec;133(4):643-56
references: 15584811
references: Mem Cognit. 2013 Feb;41(2):229-41
references: 22976883
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Sep;27(5):1180-91
references: 11550746
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Nov;137(4):615-25
references: 18999356
references: Mem Cognit. 2013 Aug;41(6):897-903
references: 23460317
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):550-4
references: 19451383
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 Nov;138(4):449-68
references: 19883130
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Oct;18(5):973-8
references: 21626231
references: Am J Psychol. 1996 Winter;109(4):567-80
references: 8989858
references: Memory. 2010 Apr;18(3):351-62
references: 20408044