Test Expectancy Moderates the Disfluency Effect with Sans Forgetica

TEST EXPECTANCY AND PERCEPTUAL DISFLUENCY 1 1 Is This Going to Be on The Test? Test Expectancy Moderates the Disfluency Effect with Sans 2 Forgetica 3 Jason Geller1,2 4 Daniel Peterson3 5 1 University of Iowa 6 2 Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science 7 3 Skidmore College 8 Author Note 9 In press at JEP:LMC 10 Jason Geller 0000-0002-7459-4505 11 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason Geller, Rutgers 12 University Center for Cognitive Science (RuCCS), 152 Frelinghuysen Road, Busch Campus, 13 Piscataway, New Jersey 08854. E-mail: [email protected] 14 The preregistered analysis plan for Experiment 1 can be found here: https://osf.io/wgp9d. 15 The preregistered analysis plan for Experiment 2 can be found here: https://osf.io/3xak9. The 16 preregistered plan for Experiment 3 can be found here: https://osf.io/hjnk5. All raw and summary 17 data, materials, and R scripts for preprocessing, analysis, and plotting for Experiments 1, 2, and 3 18 can be found at https://osf.io/cqp6s/. TEST EXPECTANCY AND SANS FORGETICA 2 19 Abstract 20 Presenting information in a perceptually disfluent format sometimes enhances memory. 21 Recent work examining one type of perceptual disfluency manipulation, Sans Forgetica typeface, 22 has yielded discrepant findings; some studies find support for the idea that the disfluent typeface 23 improves memory while others do not. The current study examined a boundary condition that 24 determines when disfluency is and is not beneficial to learning to explore this discrepancy. 25 Specifically, we investigated whether knowledge about an upcoming test (high test expectancy) 26 versus not (low test expectancy) helps clarify when mnemonic benefits arise for perceptually 27 disfluent stimuli. In Experiment 1 (preregistered, N = 231), we found that Sans Forgetica is a 28 memory-improving desirable difficulty, but only when there was no expectation of a final test. In 29 Experiment 2 (preregistered N = 232), we conceptually replicated the Sans Forgetica effect using 30 a cued recall test. In Experiment 3 (preregistered, N = 232), we ruled out a time-on-task 31 explanation while replicating the results of Experiment 2. Though these data provide some 32 evidence of San Forgetica’s mnemonic benefits, caution should be taken in interpreting these 33 results. Not only were the effect sizes moderate, but low test expectancy may not be realistically 34 achievable in actual educational contexts. Though more research is warranted, we echo our prior 35 arguments (Geller et al., 2020) that students wanting to remember more and forget less should 36 stick to other, more empirically supported desirable difficulties. 37 Keywords: Disfluency, Recognition, Recall, Desirable Difficulties, Test Expectancy 38 TEST EXPECTANCY AND SANS FORGETICA 3 39 Is This Going to Be on The Test? Test Expectancy Moderates the Disfluency Effect 40 Imagine if you could remember more and forget less just by making the perceptual 41 features of to-be-learned material harder. While this runs counter to the widely held belief that 42 learning should be fluent (easy) and errorless (Pan et al., 2020), the concept of desirable 43 difficulties (Bjork & Bjork, 2011) indicates that making learning more disfluent (harder) and 44 error-prone can sometimes help learners process the information more deeply and make it more 45 likely they will retrieve the information at a later time. This general finding has been shown 46 across various encoding contexts (e.g., spacing and interleaving; Carpenter, 2014). One 47 provocative line of research that has piqued researchers’ interest is the influence of extraneous 48 factors, such as the perceptual format of to-be-learned material (e.g., size, font/typeface, or 49 clarity), on memory. In some cases, making to-be-learned material perceptually disfluent (hard- 50 to-read) is desirable for memory—a phenomenon dubbed the perceptual interference effect 51 (Nairne, 1988), or the perceptual disfluency effect (Geller et al., 2018). While perceptual 52 disfluency has the potential to be valuable (and easy to implement), a recent meta-analysis has 53 called into question whether perceptual disfluency is desirable for learning (Xie et al., 2018, c.f., 54 Weissgerber et al., in press). The current research investigates under what conditions disfluency 55 is and is not beneficial for learning using Sans Forgetica as a proxy for perceptual disfluency. 56 Sans Forgetica 57 A typeface known as Sans Forgetica has garnered attention from both researchers and the 58 media due to its purported promises to stave off forgetting and enhance memory. Sans Forgetica 59 is a typeface developed by a team of psychologists, graphic designers, and marketers (Earp, 60 2018), that consists of intermittent gaps and back-slanted letters (see Figure 1 for an example). 61 The disfluent perceptual characteristics are thought to provide the optimal level of disfluency to 62 produce a desirable memory effect. The claims made about Sans Forgetica have led to extensive TEST EXPECTANCY AND SANS FORGETICA 4 63 press coverage from major news outlets (e.g., NPR, Washington Post) and the development of 64 browser extensions and OS applications that allow users to place content in the novel typeface. 65 The question, of course, is whether Sans Forgetica merits such attention. As Carl Sagan famously 66 said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (1980). 67 Figure 1 68 An example of Arial typeface (on the left) compared to Sans Forgetica (on the right). Sans 69 Forgetica is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License (CC BY- 70 NC; https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) 71 72 73 Two recent studies provide some initial evidence against these claims. Taylor et al. (2020) 74 and Geller et al. (2020) examined whether Sans Forgetica is really desirable for learning. In one 75 of the first studies to look at the mnemonic benefits of Sans Forgetica (N = 882 across four 76 experiments), Taylor et al. (2020) found that while Sans Forgetica was perceived as more 77 disfluent by participants (Experiment 1), there was no evidence that it yielded a mnemonic boost 78 in cued recall with strongly related cue-target pairs (Experiment 2) compared to a fluent (Arial) 79 typeface, or when learning simple prose passages (Experiments 3-4). Shortly after the publication 80 of this paper, Geller et al. (2020) contributed to the debate with three preregistered experiments 81 (N = 820) finding, similar to Taylor et al. (2020), Sans Forgetica did not enhance memory for 82 weakly related cue-target pairs (Experiment 1), a complex prose passage (Experiment 2), or a 83 yes/no recognition memory test (Experiment 3). Taken together, two independent laboratories TEST EXPECTANCY AND SANS FORGETICA 5 84 conducting seven experiments with well over 1,500 participants make for a compelling argument 85 that there is little, if any, evidence that Sans Forgetica qualifies as a desirable difficulty. 86 Effects of Perceptual Disfluency on Learning 87 While there is evidence that Sans Forgetica does not enhance memory, a growing 88 literature has shown that other types of perceptual disfluency can improve learning. In a seminal 89 study, Diemand-Yauman et al. (2011) presented to-be-learned material in difficult-to-read 90 typefaces (e.g., Comic Sans, Bodoni MT, Haettenschweiler, Monotype Corsiva). These typefaces 91 enhanced learning and retention in both the laboratory (Experiment 1) when learning about space 92 aliens and in the classroom (Experiment 2) where students studied PowerPoints in difficult 93 typefaces across several different content areas (AP English, Honors English, Honors Physics, 94 Regular Physics, Honors US History, and Honors Chemistry). Follow-up studies have since 95 shown positive effects of disfluency with a wide array of perceptual manipulations such as high- 96 level blurring (Rosner et al., 2015), inversion (Sungkhasettee et al., 2011), handwritten cursive 97 (Geller et al., 2018), and other unusual or difficult-to-read typefaces (Weissgerber & Reinhard, 98 2017; Weltman et al., 2014). 99 However, the research is unfortunately inconsistent. For instance, Rhodes and Castel 100 (2008) showed that words in a smaller-sized font (18 point) were judged as being more disfluent 101 compared to words printed in a larger-sized font (48 point), but the smaller font did not lead to 102 better memory (see Ball et al., 2014; Kornell et al., 2011; Susser et al, 2013, for similar failures to 103 replicate the font size effect; but see Halamish, 2018, and Luna et al., 2018, for exceptions). In 104 another study, Yue et al. (2013) examined the perceptual disfluency effect using a low-level blur 105 manipulation. They examined the effect of blurring across several factors: type of task (recall vs. 106 recognition), study duration (500 ms vs. 2 s), and design (within- vs. between-item lists). None of TEST EXPECTANCY AND SANS FORGETICA 6 107 their experiments revealed a memory benefit for low-level blurring (but see Rosner et al., 2015, 108 for evidence with a high-level blur manipulation). Failures to replicate the disfluency effect also 109 extend to other types of perceptual manipulations (e.g., hard-to-read fonts, Magreehan et al., 110 2015; hard-to-hear auditory information, Rhodes & Castel, 2009) and more complex learning 111 situations (e.g., in the classroom, Carpenter et al., 2013; longer learning materials; Rummer et al., 112 2016; Strukelj et al., 2015). 113 In some instances, research on perceptual disfluency has demonstrated not just null but 114 negative effects, complicating matters even further. Yue et al. (2103, Experiments 1a and 1b) 115 found that a low-level blur manipulation hurt recall compared to a clear, normal font. Similarly, 116 in the aforementioned Taylor et al. (2020) exploration of Sans Forgetica, outcomes from 117 Experiment 2 suggested not only was the novel typeface not beneficial for learning, but it also 118 impaired memory for briefly presented (100 ms) cue-target pairs.

Load more