Recommendations for exploring the disfluency hypothesis for establishing whether perceptually degrading materials impacts performance

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 123-131

  Dunlosky, John ^a   Mueller, Michael L ^a  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Disfluency effect; Epistemology; Processing fluency; Replication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961211751     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-016-9155-9     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alter, A. L. (2013). The benefits of cognitive disfluency. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 473–442.
2. Benjamin, A. S. & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61, 228–247.
3. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Braver, S. L., Thoemmes, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (2014). Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 333–342.
5. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 63–147.
6. Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118, 114–118.
7. Dunlosky, J. & Ariel, R. (2011). Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (pp. 103–140). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8. Dunlosky, J., Mueller, M. L., & Tauber, S. K. (2014). The contribution of processing fluency (and beliefs) to people’s judgments of learning. In D. S. Lindsay, C. M. Kelley, A. P. Yonelinas, & H. L. Roediger III (Eds.), Remembering: Attributions, processes, and control in human memory: Papers in honour of Larry L. Jacoby (pp. 46–64). New York: Psychology Press.
9. Eitel, A., & Kühl, T. (2016). Effects of disfluency and test expectancy on learning with text. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9145-3.
10. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 126, 349–370.
11. Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (2016). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x
12. Lehmann, J., Goussios, C., & Seufert, T. (2016). Working memory capacity and disfluency effect: an aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9149-z.
13. Magreehan, D.A., Serra, M.J., Schwartz, N.H., & Narciss, S. (2016) Further Boundary conditions for the effects of perceptual disfluency on judgments of learning. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9147-1.
14. Matvey, G., Dunlosky, J., & Guttentag, R. (2001). Fluency of retrieval at study affects judgments of learning (JOLs): An analytic or nonanalytic basis for JOLs? Memory & Cognition, 29, 222–232.
15. Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. 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.
16. Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
17. Pashler, H. & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? three arguments explained. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536.
18. Pashler, H. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530.
19. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.
20. Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353.
21. Rhodes, M. G. & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 137, 615–625. doi:10.1037/a0013684.
22. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., & Schwede, A. (2016). Fortune is fickle: null-effects of disfluency on learning outcomes. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9151-5.
23. Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effects of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566.
24. Schwartz, B. L., Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1997). The inferential and experiential bases of metamemory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 132–137.
25. Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2016). Generalizing screen inferiority – does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks? Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9150-6.
26. Strukelj, A., Scheiter, K., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2016) Exploring the lack of disfluency effect: evidence from eye movements. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9146-2.
27. Unkelbach, C. & Greifeneder, R. (2013). The Experience of Thinking: How the Fluency of Mental Processes Influences Cognition and Behavior. New York: Psychology Press.