A multiverse lack of replication for working memory capacity as moderator of the perceptual disfluency effect

IF 9 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL

Learning and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-18 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102806

Sophia C. Weissgerber , Ralf Rummer

{"title":"A multiverse lack of replication for working memory capacity as moderator of the perceptual disfluency effect","authors":"Sophia C. Weissgerber , Ralf Rummer","doi":"10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Lehmann et al. (2016) investigated working memory capacity (WMC) as a boundary condition for disfluency in an Aptitude-Treatment-Interaction-Study (<em>Metacognition and Learning, 11</em>, 89–105) and, confirming predictions, found that only learners with higher WMC benefited from disfluency in retention and comprehension. Remarkably, retention with fluent texts was similar across WMC levels, while, counterintuitively, higher WMC descriptively predicted lower comprehension. This data pattern underlying their significant interactions is noteworthy and based on a small sample. Due to researchers' degrees of freedom in analytical decisions, we explored the replicability and analytical robustness of the primary findings by modeling different subjective choices in the analytical approach via multiverse analysis. In our (pre-registered) direct replication in the laboratory (<em>N</em> = 220) disfluency, WMC, and their interaction showed null effects on retention, comprehension, and transfer across all multiverse specifications, including when WMC was operationalized via OSPAN. This reflects a consistent lack of (analytical) replicability.</div></div><div><h3>Educational relevance statement</h3><div>A proposed, cost-effective intervention to enhance learning is based on perceptual disfluency, which posits that harder-to-read fonts improve learning and memory. However, evidence supporting this font disfluency effect is mixed, leading researchers to propose conditions under which it might work.</div><div>Lehmann et al. (2016) suggested that harder-to-read fonts only aid learning when paired with sufficient working memory capacity (WMC). Their findings imply that disfluency might not benefit everyone universally but could help those with higher WMC.</div><div>If the disfluency effect were universal, it would always improve learning without exceptions. But if it depends on specific conditions like WMC, it might only benefit certain learners. If research shows that disfluency has no overall benefit, it would suggest that using harder-to-read fonts in education is ineffective.</div><div>Our study found no evidence that font disfluency improves learning overall, nor did we find support for a more limited effect confined to learners with higher working memory capacity. Taken together, these findings suggest that the disfluency effect is unreliable and should not be recommended for educational purposes. Given the inconsistent results in the literature and the lack of robust evidence, educators should be cautious about relying on font disfluency as a tool for improving learning – despite its allure in terms of scalability due to easy applicability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48336,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Individual Differences","volume":"126 ","pages":"Article 102806"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608025001827","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lehmann et al. (2016) investigated working memory capacity (WMC) as a boundary condition for disfluency in an Aptitude-Treatment-Interaction-Study (Metacognition and Learning, 11, 89–105) and, confirming predictions, found that only learners with higher WMC benefited from disfluency in retention and comprehension. Remarkably, retention with fluent texts was similar across WMC levels, while, counterintuitively, higher WMC descriptively predicted lower comprehension. This data pattern underlying their significant interactions is noteworthy and based on a small sample. Due to researchers' degrees of freedom in analytical decisions, we explored the replicability and analytical robustness of the primary findings by modeling different subjective choices in the analytical approach via multiverse analysis. In our (pre-registered) direct replication in the laboratory (N = 220) disfluency, WMC, and their interaction showed null effects on retention, comprehension, and transfer across all multiverse specifications, including when WMC was operationalized via OSPAN. This reflects a consistent lack of (analytical) replicability.

Educational relevance statement

A proposed, cost-effective intervention to enhance learning is based on perceptual disfluency, which posits that harder-to-read fonts improve learning and memory. However, evidence supporting this font disfluency effect is mixed, leading researchers to propose conditions under which it might work.

Lehmann et al. (2016) suggested that harder-to-read fonts only aid learning when paired with sufficient working memory capacity (WMC). Their findings imply that disfluency might not benefit everyone universally but could help those with higher WMC.

If the disfluency effect were universal, it would always improve learning without exceptions. But if it depends on specific conditions like WMC, it might only benefit certain learners. If research shows that disfluency has no overall benefit, it would suggest that using harder-to-read fonts in education is ineffective.

Our study found no evidence that font disfluency improves learning overall, nor did we find support for a more limited effect confined to learners with higher working memory capacity. Taken together, these findings suggest that the disfluency effect is unreliable and should not be recommended for educational purposes. Given the inconsistent results in the literature and the lack of robust evidence, educators should be cautious about relying on font disfluency as a tool for improving learning – despite its allure in terms of scalability due to easy applicability.

查看原文本刊更多论文

工作记忆容量在知觉不流畅效应中的调节作用：多元宇宙缺乏复制

Lehmann等人（2016）在一项“能力-处理-互动-研究”（元认知与学习，11,89-105）中研究了工作记忆容量（WMC）作为不流利的边界条件，并证实了预测，发现只有WMC较高的学习者才会从保留和理解上的不流利中受益。值得注意的是，在不同的WMC水平上，流利文本的记忆相似，而与直觉相反的是，较高的WMC在描述性上预测较低的理解。它们之间的重要相互作用背后的数据模式是值得注意的，并且基于一个小样本。由于研究人员在分析决策中的自由度，我们通过多元宇宙分析对分析方法中的不同主观选择进行建模，探索了主要发现的可复制性和分析稳健性。在我们（预先注册的）实验室直接复制（N = 220）中，非流畅性、WMC及其相互作用对所有多元宇宙规范的保留、理解和转移没有影响，包括当WMC通过OSPAN操作时。这反映了（分析）可复制性的一贯缺乏。教育相关性陈述一种建议的、具有成本效益的提高学习的干预是基于感知不流畅的，它假设更难读的字体可以提高学习和记忆。然而，支持这种字体不流畅效应的证据是混合的，这使得研究人员提出了它可能起作用的条件。Lehmann等人（2016）认为，难以阅读的字体只有在与足够的工作记忆容量（WMC）配对时才有助于学习。他们的研究结果表明，不流利可能不会对所有人都有利，但可以帮助那些WMC较高的人。如果不流畅效应是普遍存在的，那么它总是会毫无例外地提高学习效果。但如果它取决于特定的条件，比如WMC，它可能只对某些学习者有益。如果研究表明不流利没有总体上的好处，那就表明在教育中使用更难读的字体是无效的。我们的研究没有发现任何证据表明字体不流畅能提高整体的学习能力，也没有发现对工作记忆能力较高的学习者有更有限的影响。综上所述，这些发现表明不流畅效应是不可靠的，不应该推荐用于教育目的。鉴于文献中不一致的结果和缺乏有力的证据，教育者应该谨慎依赖字体不流畅作为提高学习的工具——尽管它在可扩展性方面具有吸引力，因为它易于应用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Learning and Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-

CiteScore

6.60

自引率

2.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： Learning and Individual Differences is a research journal devoted to publishing articles of individual differences as they relate to learning within an educational context. The Journal focuses on original empirical studies of high theoretical and methodological rigor that that make a substantial scientific contribution. Learning and Individual Differences publishes original research. Manuscripts should be no longer than 7500 words of primary text (not including tables, figures, references).