The Meyer, Frederick et al. paper also brings up an important lesson. Ultimately, the authors found that the original disfluency finding was the result of just one of the three CRT questions (the widget problem, for those who are interested), and that it was a movement in the control group rather than the treatment group. This highlights the need to confirm that an effect is happening where it should be happening (in response to the treatment rather than movement in the control) (this point was made nicely by Uri Simonsohn in the journal club meeting). Hopefully, researchers will move away from the use of font as a fluency manipulation in the future and this idea, no matter how intuitively appealing, will be appropriately discounted.