Механизмы эффекта не-беглости: систематический обзор
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v19i108.2207Аннотация
Введение: хотя ряд исследований связывает не-беглость (субъективное переживание трудности обработки информации) с когнитивными и метакогнитивными преимуществами, эмпирические данные остаются противоречивыми: часто фиксируются нулевые или негативные эффекты, а теоретические объяснения фрагментарны. Цель: систематизировать и уточнить механизмы влияния не-беглости на когнитивные, метакогнитивные и поведенческие показатели. Методы: проведен систематический обзор 110 эмпирических исследований. Результаты: выделены пять ключевых механизмов: (1) метакогнитивная подсказка, (2) сигнал когнитивной вовлеченности, (3) процессуальные изменения (например, компенсаторная обработка), (4) аффективное и гедонистическое маркирование, (5) модерация наивными теориями. Наиболее устойчивым эффектом являются метакогнитивные иллюзии: не-беглость снижает оценки усвоения материала, не влияя на фактическое запоминание. Когнитивные преимущества проявляются лишь при определенных условиях (например, высокой емкости рабочей памяти или мотивации), тогда как многие качественные исследования не выявляют эффектов не-беглости вовсе. Выводы: необходим переход к исследованиям, ориентированным на конкретные механизмы. Для поддержки этого направления в работе представлена библиотека манипуляций и контрольных условий, а также рекомендации по эмпирической проверке точных теоретических предсказаний.
Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
Agarwal, S., Hu, M. R., & Lee, A. D. (2022). Street name fluency and housing prices. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 65, 181–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-021-09825-5
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or Why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19(2), 161‒167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Suppressing secrecy through metacognitive ease: cognitive fluency encourages self-disclosure. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1414‒1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02461.x
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219‒235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569‒576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
Ardıç, E. E., & Besken, M. (2023). Cooking through perceptual disfluencies: the effects of auditory and visual distortions on predicted and actual memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 51(4), 862‒874. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01370-7
Bahník, Š. (2019). Disfluent, but fast: Inverted-U shaped effect of fluency on decision times. Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 346‒354. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000456
Bahník, Š., & Vranka, M. A. (2017). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it might not be risky: The effect of fluency on judgment of risk does not generalize to new stimuli. Psychological Science, 28(4), 427‒436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616685770
Baldwin, J. P., Newton, H. M., & Davis, M. E. (2020). The effect of disfluency on the framing effect. Journal of Counseling and Psychology, 3(1), Article 1.
Ball, B. H., Klein, K. N., & Brewer, G. A. (2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 336‒348. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000023
Ball, L. J., Threadgold, E., Marsh, J. E., & Christensen, B. T. (2018). The effects of stimulus complexity and conceptual fluency on aesthetic judgments of abstract art: Evidence for a default–interventionist account. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 235‒252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481255
Ball, L. J., Threadgold, E., Solowiej, A., & Marsh, J. E. (2018). Can intrinsic and extrinsic metacognitive cues shield against distraction in problem solving? Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1‒12. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.9
Belke, B., Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2015). When challenging art gets liked: evidences for a dual preference formation process for fluent and non-fluent portraits. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0131796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131796
Berezner, T., & Gorbunova, E. (2022). Review of studies on the disfluency effect: Can a font change improve memorization and educational outcomes? The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(3-4), 5‒28. https://doi.org/10.47010/22.3-4.1
Berezner, T., & Gorbunova, E. (2024). The presence of images does not moderate the disfluency effect. Psychological Studies, 16(92), 2‒36. https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v16i92.1489
Besken, M. (2018). Generating lies produces lower memory predictions and higher memory performance than telling the truth: Evidence for a metacognitive illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 465‒484. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000459
Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2013). Easily perceived, easily remembered? Perceptual interference produces a double dissociation between metamemory and memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 41(6), 897‒903. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0307-8
Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2014). Perceptual fluency, auditory generation, and metamemory: Analyzing the perceptual fluency hypothesis in the auditory modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 429‒440. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034407
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In: Metcalfe, J., Shimamura, A.P. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (pp. 185‒205). The MIT Press.
Bjork, R. A., & Yue, C. L. (2016). Commentary: Is disfluency desirable? Metacognition Learning, 11(1), 133‒137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9156-8
Christensen, B. T., Ball, L. J., & Reber, R. (2020). Perceptual fluency effects in judgments of creativity and beauty: creative objects are perceived fluently yet they are visually complex. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(1), 45‒66. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2019.1689986
Claypool, H. M., Housley, M. K., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., & Mackie, D. M. (2012). Easing in: Fluent processing brings others into the ingroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(4), 441‒455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212439115
Cui, L., & Liu, J. (2022). Recognition of studied words in perceptual disfluent Sans Forgetica font. Vision, 6(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision6030052
Culbert, J. H., Hobert, A., Jahn, N., Haupka, N., Schmidt, M., Donner, P., & Mayr, P. (2025). Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 130(4), 2475‒2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3
Diachek, E., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2022). The effect of disfluency on memory for what was said. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(8), 1306‒1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001156
Díaz-Lago, M., & Matute, H. (2019). A hard to read font reduces the causality bias. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(5), 547‒554. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004848
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(1), 111‒115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012
Dunlosky, J., & Mueller, M. L. (2016). Recommendations for exploring the disfluency hypothesis for establishing whether perceptually degrading materials impacts performance. Metacognition Learning, 11(1), 123‒131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9155-9
Ebersbach, M., Guschlbauer, J. A., & Rummer, R. (2023). Flickering presentations do affect the judgment of learning but not the learning outcome. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37(4), 889-898. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4086
Eitel, A., Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency meets cognitive load in multimedia learning: does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand?: Disfluency in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 488‒501. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3004
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
Faber, M., Mills, C., Kopp, K., & D’Mello, S. (2017). The effect of disfluency on mind wandering during text comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 914‒919. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1153-z
French, M. M. J., Blood, A., Bright, N. D., Futak, D., Grohmann, M. J., Hasthorpe, A., Heritage, J., Poland, R. L., Reece, S., & Tabor, J. (2013). Changing fonts in education: How the benefits vary with ability and dyslexia. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(4), 301‒304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.736430
Geller, J., Gomez, P., Buchanan, E., & Makowski, D. (2025). A distributional response time analysis of the perceptual disfluency effect. Journal of Cognition, 8(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.469
Geller, J., & Peterson, D. (2021). Is this going to be on the test? Test expectancy moderates the disfluency effect with Sans Forgetica. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(12), 1924‒1938. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001042
Geller, J., Still, M. L., Dark, V. J., & Carpenter, S. K. (2018). Would disfluency by any other name still be disfluent? Examining the disfluency effect with cursive handwriting. Memory & Cognition, 46(7), 1109‒1126. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0824-6
Graf, L. K. M., & Landwehr, J. R. (2017). Aesthetic pleasure versus aesthetic interest: The two routes to aesthetic liking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 217446. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00015
Halin, N. (2016). Distracted while reading? Changing to a hard-to-read font shields against the effects of environmental noise and speech on text memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1196. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01196
Hirshman, E., Trembath, D., & Mulligan, N. (1994). Theoretical implications of the mnemonic benefits of perceptual interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 608‒620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.3.608
İli̇c, U., & Akbulut, Y. (2019). Effect of disfluency on learning outcomes, metacognitive judgments and cognitive load in computer assisted learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 310‒321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.001
Jia, X., Li, P., Chen, Q., & Li, W. (2023). Moderating role of creative mindset in the effect of metacognitive experience on insight problem solving. Journal of Intelligence, 11(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060099
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (2016). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition Learning, 11(1), 1‒13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x
Kühl, T., Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). A call for an unbiased search for moderators in disfluency research: Reply to Oppenheimer and Alter (2014). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 805‒806. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3030
Lai, T., & Zhang, J. (2021). The influence of signaling on the disfluency effect in multimedia learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 755804. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755804
Lehmann, J., Goussios, C., & Seufert, T. (2016). Working memory capacity and disfluency effect: an aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Metacognition Learning, 11(1), 89‒105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9149-z
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 Learning, 11(1), 35‒56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9147-1
Medimorec, S., Young, T. P., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Disfluency effects on lexical selection. Cognition, 158, 28‒32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.008
Menninghaus, W., Kegel, V., Fayn, K., & Schlotz, W. (2025). Heinrich von Kleist’s extremely complex syntax: How does it affect aesthetic liking? Literature, 5(4), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/literature5040025
Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T. C., Pinto, J. D. G., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J., Pennycook, G., Ackerman, R., Thompson, V. A., & Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), e16‒e30. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000049
Miele, D. B., Finn, B., & Molden, D. C. (2011). Does easily learned mean easily remembered?: It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 320‒324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610397954
Miele, D. B., & Molden, D. C. (2010). Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 535‒557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019745
Motyka, S., Suri, R., Grewal, D., & Kohli, C. (2016). Disfluent vs. fluent price offers: paradoxical role of processing disfluency. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(5), 627‒638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0459-0
Oliveira, G. A., Remondes, M., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2023). Easy to process, hard to control: transient and sustained processing fluency impairs cognitive control adjustments to conflict. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 174702182311597. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231159787
Olszanowski, M., Kaminska, O. K., & Winkielman, P. (2018). Mixed matters: fluency impacts trust ratings when faces range on valence but not on motivational implications. Cognition and Emotion, 32(5), 1032‒1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1386622
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237‒241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014
Oppenheimer, D. M., & Alter, A. L. (2014). The search for moderators in disfluency research: Moderators of disfluency. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 502‒504. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3023
Oppenheimer, D. M., & Frank, M. C. (2008). A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 106(3), 1178‒1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.010
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M, Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Park, K., & Ryu, G. (2025). The effects of regulatory focus, processing disfluency, and shopping goals on consumer perceptions of range-of-savings claims in retailers’ mobile ads. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 85, 104312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104312
Park, Y. W., Herr, P. M., & Kim, B. C. (2016). The effect of disfluency on consumer perceptions of information security. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 525‒535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9359-9
Pieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2018). Disfluency as a desirable difficulty—the effects of letter deletion on monitoring and performance. Frontiers in Education, 3, 101. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00101
Pieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2017). Fostering analytic metacognitive processes and reducing overconfidence by disfluency: the role of contrast effects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(3), 291‒301. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3326
Pieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2016). Metacognitive judgments and disfluency – does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance? Learning and Instruction, 44, 31‒40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.012
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 69‒80, https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.69
Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338‒342. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and social psychology review, 8(4), 364‒382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45‒48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008
Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615‒625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 550‒554. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.550
Rosner, T. M., Davis, H., & Milliken, B. (2015). Perceptual blurring and recognition memory: A desirable difficulty effect revealed. Acta Psychologica, 160, 11‒22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.006
Sanchez, C. A., & Naylor, J. S. (2018). Disfluent presentations lead to the creation of more false memories. PLoS ONE, 13(1), Article e0191735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191735
Schwarz, N. Feelings as information: Implications for affective influences on information processing. (2013). In: Theories of Mood and Cognition (pp. 159‒176). Psychology Press.
Schwarz, N. (2002). Feelings as information: Moods influence judgments and processing strategies. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases (1st ed., pp. 534‒547).Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.031
Seufert, T., Wagner, F., & Westphal, J. (2017). The effects of different levels of disfluency on learning outcomes and cognitive load. Instructional Science, 45(2), 221‒238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9387-8
Sirota, M., Theodoropoulou, A., & Juanchich, M. (2021). Disfluent fonts do not help people to solve math and non-math problems regardless of their numeracy. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(1), 142‒159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1759689
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2021). Visualizing pathogens: Disfluent shapes of pathogens increase their perceived complexity and danger while realism and disfluency boost the credibility of visualizations. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(2), 316‒323. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.232
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20(2), 135‒138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x
Spears, D., Fernández-Linsenbarth, I., Okan, Y., Ruz, M., & González, F. (2018). Disfluent fonts lead to more utilitarian decisions in moral dilemmas. Psicológica Journal, 39(1), 41‒63. https://doi.org/10.2478/psicolj-2018-0003
Sundar, A., Wu, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2019). Faded fonts: How difficulty in information processing promotes sensitivity to missing information. Interdisciplinary Journal of Signage and Wayfinding, 3(1), 16‒27. https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2470-9670.2019.v1.i2.a37
Sung, B., Vanman, E. J., & Hartley, N. (2022). Revisiting (dis)fluency: Metacognitive difficulty as a novelty cue that evokes feeling‐of‐interest. Psychology and Marketing, 39(8), 1451‒1466. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21664
Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 973‒978. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9
Susser, J. A., Mulligan, N. W., & Besken, M. (2013). The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs). Memory & Cognition, 41(7), 1000‒1011. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0323-8
Thompson, D. V., & Ince, E. C. (2013). When disfluency signals competence: The effect of processing difficulty on perceptions of service agents. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 228‒240. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0340
Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2), 237‒251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
Tracy, R. E., Porot, N., Mandelbaum, E., & Young, S. G. (2023). Disfluency attenuates the reception of pseudoprofound and postmodernist bullshit. Thinking & Reasoning, 30(4), 579‒611. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2284406
Tsigeman, E. (2026). Appendix materials for Mechanisms underlying disfluency effects: a systematic review paper. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31821274
Walter, N., Bilandzic, H., Schwarz, N., & Brooks, J. J. (2021). Metacognitive approach to narrative persuasion: the desirable and undesirable consequences of narrative disfluency. Media Psychology, 24(5), 713‒739. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2020.1789477
Weissgerber, S. C., Brunmair, M., & Rummer, R. (2021). Null and void? Errors in meta-analysis on perceptual disfluency and recommendations to improve meta-analytical reproducibility. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1221‒1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09579-1
Weissgerber, S. C., & Reinhard, M. A. (2017). Is disfluency desirable for learning? Learning and Instruction, 49, 199‒217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.004
Wetzler, E. L., Pyke, A. A., & Werner, A. (2021). Sans Forgetica is not the “font” of knowledge: Disfluent fonts are not always desirable difficulties. SAGE Open, 11(4), Article 21582440211056624. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211056624
Xie, H., Zhou, Z., & Liu, Q. (2018). Null effects of perceptual disfluency on learning outcomes in a text-based educational context: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 745‒771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9442-x
Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 229‒241. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование») 4.0 Всемирная.
