Higher judgements of learning for emotional words: processing fluency or memory beliefs?

ABSTRACT

Previous research has shown that emotionally-valenced words are given higher judgements of learning (JOLs) than are neutral words. The current study examined potential explanations for this emotional salience effect on JOLs. Experiment 1 replicated the basic emotionality/JOL effect. In Experiments 2A and 2B, we used pre-study JOLs and assessed memory beliefs qualitatively, finding that, on average, participants believed that positive and negative words were more memorable than neutral words. Experiment 3 utilised a lexical decision task, resulting in lower reaction times (RTs) for positive words than for neutral words, but equivalent RTs for negative and neutral words, suggesting that processing fluency may partially account for higher JOLs for positive words, but not for negative words. Finally, we conducted a series of moderation analyses in Experiment 4 which assessed the relative contributions of fluency and beliefs to JOLs by measuring both factors in the same participants, showing that RTs made no significant contribution to JOLs for either positive or negative words. Our findings suggest that although positive words may be more fluently processed than neutral words, memory beliefs are the primary factor underlying higher JOLs for both positive and negative words.

KEYWORDS:

• Judgements of learning
• emotional valence
• processing fluency
• memory beliefs

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/93qev/?view_only=bf76d012404d4a8fbafe462c5a736d01.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The main effect of global prediction difference was not significant, F < 1. Note that this means that those who predicted larger difference in performance do not give higher JOLs in general, an effect of no interest to the study.

2 The main effect of global prediction difference was not significant, F < 1. Again, this means that those who predicted larger difference in performance do not give higher JOLs in general, an effect of no interest to the study.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.