Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jan 6:6:1995.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01995. eCollection 2015.

The Effect of Word Frequency on Judgments of Learning: Contributions of Beliefs and Processing Fluency

Xiaoyu Jia  1 , Ping Li  2 , Xinyu Li  2 , Yuchi Zhang  3 , Wei Cao  2 , Liren Cao  4 , Weijian Li  2
Affiliations

The Effect of Word Frequency on Judgments of Learning: Contributions of Beliefs and Processing Fluency

Xiaoyu Jia et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Previous research has shown that word frequency affects judgments of learning (JOLs). Specifically, people give higher JOLs for high-frequency (HF) words than for low-frequency (LF) words. However, the exact mechanism underlying this effect is largely unknown. The present study replicated and extended previous work by exploring the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs to the word frequency effect. In Experiment 1, participants studied HF and LF words and made immediate JOLs. The findings showed that participants gave higher JOLs for HF words than for LF ones, reflecting the word frequency effect. In Experiment 2a (measuring the encoding fluency by using self-paced study time) and Experiment 2b (disrupting perceptual fluency by presenting words in an easy or difficult font style), we evaluated the contribution of processing fluency. The findings of Experiment 2a revealed no significant difference in self-paced study time between HF and LF words. The findings of Experiment 2b showed that the size of word frequency effect did not decrease or disappear even when presenting words in a difficult font style. In Experiment 3a (a questionnaire-based study) and Experiment 3b (making pre-study JOLs), we evaluated the role of beliefs in this word frequency effect. The results of Experiment 3a showed that participants gave higher estimates for HF as compared to LF words. That is, they estimated that hypothetical participants would better remember the HF words. The results of Experiment 3b showed that participants gave higher pre-study JOLs for HF than for LF words. These results across experiments suggested that people's beliefs, not processing fluency, contribute substantially to the word frequency effect on JOLs. However, considering the validation of the indexes reflecting the processing fluency in the current study, we cannot entirely rule out the possible contribution of processing fluency. The relative contribution of processing fluency and beliefs to word frequency effect and the theoretical implications were discussed.

Keywords: beliefs; cue-utilization framework; judgments of learning; processing fluency; word frequency.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Mean judgment of learning (JOL) and recall performance for different word frequency conditions in Experiment 1. HF = high frequency words, LF = low frequency words. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Mean judgment of learning (JOL) and recall performance for different word frequency conditions in Experiment 2a. HF = high frequency words, LF = low frequency words. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Mean judgment of learning (JOL) for different word frequency and font styles conditions in Experiment 2b. HF = high frequency words, LF = low frequency words; Easy = Easy font style, Difficult = Difficult font style. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Mean pre-study judgment of learning (pre-study JOL) and recall performance for different word frequency conditions in Experiment 3b. HF = high frequency words, LF = low frequency words. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Alter A. L., Oppenheimer D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13 219–235. 10.1177/1088868309341564 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ariel R., Hines J. C., Hertzog C. (2014). Test framing generates a stability bias for predictions of learning by causing people to discount their learning beliefs. J. Mem. Lang. 75 181–198. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.06.003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Begg I., Duft S., Lalonde P., Melnick R., Sanvito J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. J. Mem. Lang. 28 610–632. 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8 - DOI
    1. Benjamin A. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Mem. Cogn. 31 297–305. 10.3758/BF03194388 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benjamin A. S., Bjork R. A., Schwartz B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 127 55–68. 10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55 - DOI - PubMed