ArticleMetacognition and learning2022
Association and dissociation between judgments of learning and memory: A Meta-analysis of the font size effect.
Article in Metacognition and learning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limited cue integration in metacognitive control decisions.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Manipulating belief partially remedies the metamemory expectancy illusion in schema-based source monitoring.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Reducing cheap talk? How monetary incentives affect the accuracy of metamemory judgments.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Development and usability testing of an integrated geriatric care model (SMART system) to promote integrated home-based geriatric care.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Responsible remembering: The role of metacognition, forgetting, attention, and retrieval in adaptive memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- The perceived importance of words in large font guides learning and selective memory.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Do Judgments of Learning Impair Recall When Uninformative Cues Are Salient?Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- The font size effect depends on inter-item relation.Memory & cognition · 2023Article
- Conversational pragmatics: memory reporting strategies in different social contexts.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.