Syntes: Lauterman & Ackerman (2014) — the screen gap in comprehension and overconfidence can be removed by in-depth processing

Källa: Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046

Verified numbers (full text read 2026-10-05)

• Materials and timing: six expository texts of 1000–1200 words (2–4 pages); 7 min study per text (deliberately short; free study took 9–10 min in earlier studies), 5 min per test. Screen = Word file in edit mode with annotation tools; paper = printed text with marker and pen. SAT used as covariate.
• Exp 1 (N = 87; screen 38, paper 49): first text pair replicated screen inferiority — screen readers scored lower (t(85) = 2.21, p < .05) with no difference in predictions, i.e. more overconfidence on screen (Measure × Medium F(1,82) = 6.36, p = .01). In pairs 2 and 3 the Measure × Medium interaction was gone (F < 1): "even a little practice neutralized the screen inferiority found in Pair 1." Screen readers who preferred screens improved ~18 points and matched paper readers by pair 3 (p = .25); screen readers who preferred paper did not improve.
• Exp 2 (N = 76; screen 37, paper 39): delayed keyword generation (write four keywords per text after a delay, then predict, then test). Already in pair 1: no main effect of medium and no Measure × Medium interaction — "equivalent test scores, POPs, and overconfidence in both media, with no screen inferiority." After practising the procedure, screen inferiority marginally re-emerged for those reading on their non-preferred medium (F(1,41) = 3.77, p = .06), and screen readers who preferred paper stayed overconfident (t(24) = 5.60).
• Not measured: long-term retention; school-age readers; scrolling vs pagination as a factor.

Role for C3

Bound, not kill: unprompted first-text reading under time pressure reproduced the usual screen inferiority (supports the average), but a simple in-depth processing prompt (delayed keyword generation) removed both the comprehension gap and the extra overconfidence from the first texts, and brief study–test practice removed the overconfidence difference. The gap is therefore not a fixed property of the screen; it persisted for readers who preferred paper but read on screen. C3 weakened 2026-10-05.