Prior research found a word complexity effect: Authors who use complex words are less favorably received when writing academic essays, business letters, and other relatively formal communications. The present study tested if word choice affects evaluations of messages between friends (Experiments 1-2) and spoken messages (Experiment 2). Three widespread dimensions of social judgments were studied – namely, persuasiveness, competence, and sincerity. Participants read/heard messages that varied (between-participants) by ordinary versus low-frequency words (sad vs. forlorn). Messages containing low-frequency words (mostly) received lower evaluations. Most importantly, word choice effects in messages between friends were consistently found – for both written and spoken language. Feedback analysis (Experiment 2) revealed that the overuse of “big vocabulary” conflicts with conscious social beliefs regarding ways to communicate, showing that social judgments spring from a combination of conscious social beliefs and the relatively unconscious influence of fluency.
AdelmanJ. S.BrownG. D. A.QuesadaJ. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x
2.
AllenM. S.IliescuD.GreiffS. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science: A call to action. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699
3.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. 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
4.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009a). 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
5.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009b). 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
6.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M.EpleyN.EyreR. 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
7.
AreniC. S. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 20(4), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10077
8.
BeggI.DuftS.LalondeP.MelnickR.SanvitoJ. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
9.
BenjaminA. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition, 31(2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194388
10.
BergerJ.IyengarR. (2013). Communication channels and word of mouth: How the medium shapes the message. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1086/671345
11.
BlankenshipK. L.HoltgravesT. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04273034
12.
BornsteinR. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265
13.
BrysbaertM.NewB. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
14.
CampbellK. S.NaidooJ. S.SmithJ. (2023). When your boss says, “You need to sound more professional”: Writing style and writer attributions. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211025735
15.
CialdiniR. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins Publishers.
16.
ClaypoolH. M.MackieD. M.Garcia-MarquesT. (2015). Fluency and attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(7), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12179
17.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
18.
CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.BeningerA. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004
19.
DaytonZ. A.DragojevicM. (2024). Effects of jargon and source accent on receptivity to science communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 43(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231191787
20.
DeanR. S.YekovichF. R.GrayJ. W. (1988). The effect of modality on long-term recognition memory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(2), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(88)90010-0
21.
DunloskyJ.MuellerM. L.TauberS. K. (2015). The contribution of processing fluency (and beliefs) to people’s judgments of learning. In LindsayD. S.KelleyC. M.YonelinasA. P.RoedigerH. L.III. (Eds.), Remembering: Attributions, processes, and control in human memory: Essays in honor of Larry Jacoby (pp. 46–64). Psychology Press.
EisingerR.MillsJ. (1968). Perception of the sincerity and competence of a communicator as a function of the extremity of his position. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90043-7
24.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
25.
GalakJ.NelsonL. D. (2011). The virtues of opaque prose: How lay beliefs about fluency influence perceptions of quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 250–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.002
26.
GeipelJ.KeysarB. (2023). Listening speaks to our intuition while reading promotes analytic thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(4), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001316
27.
GibbonsP.BuschJ.BradacJ. J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X91102003
28.
GiffordR. (1983). The experience of personal space: Perception of interpersonal distance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 7(3), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986947
29.
GoughP. B.JuelC.GriffithP. L. (1992). Reading, spelling, and the orthographic cipher. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 35–48). Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
GriceP. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
HartleyJ.SottoE.PennebakerJ. (2002). Style and substance in psychology: Are influential articles more readable than less influential ones?Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002005
34.
JacobyL. L.KelleyC. M.BrownJ.JasechkoJ. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.326
35.
JamesW. (1990). The principles of psychology. In AdlerM. J.FadimanC.GoetzP. W. (Eds.), Great books of the western world (Vol. 53). Encyclopaedia Britannica.
36.
JiaX.LiP.LiX.ZhangY.CaoW.CaoL.LiW. (2016). The effect of word frequency on judgments of learning: Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1995), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01995
37.
JiangY.HongJ. (2014). It feels fluent, but not right: The interactive effect of expected and experienced processing fluency on evaluative judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.004
38.
KelleyC. M.LindsayD. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
39.
KirklandA.GustafsonJ.SzékelyÉ. (2023). Pardon my disfluency: The impact of disfluency effects on the perception of speaker competence and confidence. In 24th international speech communication association, interspeech 2023, Dublin, Ireland, 20–24 August 2023 (pp. 5217–5221). International Speech Communication Association. Available at. https://www.speech.kth.se/tts-demos/kirkland23_interspeech.pdf
40.
KoriatA. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
41.
LabrooA. A.KimS. (2009). The “instrumentality” heuristic: Why metacognitive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit. Psychological Science, 20(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02264.x
42.
LabrooA. A.PocheptsovaA. (2016). Metacognition and consumer judgment: Fluency is pleasant but disfluency ignites interest. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.008
43.
LangeB. P.ZaretskyE.SchwarzS.EulerH. A. (2014). Words won’t fail: Experimental evidence on the role of verbal proficiency in mate choice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(5), 482–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13515886
44.
LanskaM.OldsJ. M.WestermanD. L. (2014). Fluency effects in recognition memory: Are perceptual fluency and conceptual fluency interchangeable?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034309
45.
LanskaM.WestermanD. L. (2018). Transfer appropriate fluency: Encoding and retrieval interactions in fluency-based memory illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(7), 1001–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000496
46.
Leboe-McGowanJ. P.WhittleseaB. W. A. (2013). Through the SCAPE looking glass: Sources of performance and sources of attribution. In ReisbergD. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 243–266). Oxford University Press.
47.
LevittS. D.DubnerS. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. HaperCollins Publishers.
48.
ManganB. (1993). Taking phenomenology seriously: The “fringe” and its implications for cognitive research. Consciousness and Cognition, 2(2), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1993.1008
49.
MarkowitzD. M. (2019). What words are worth: National Science Foundation grant abstracts indicate award funding. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18824859
50.
MarkowitzD. M. (2023). Instrumental goal activation increases online petition support across languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(6), 1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000333
51.
MarkowitzD. M. (2024). Science written by generative AI is perceived as less intelligent, but more credible and trustworthy than science written by humans. Available online under v1 (Tue, 23 Apr 2024) at:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.00706
52.
MarkowitzD. M.ShulmanH. C. (2021). The predictive utility of word familiarity for online engagements and funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(18), Article e2026045118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026045118
53.
MartínezE.MollicaF.GibsonE. (2023). Even lawyers do not like legalese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(23), Article e2302672120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2302672120
54.
MillerG. F. (2000). The mating mind. How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Doubleday.
55.
MillerG. R.HewgillM. A. (1964). The effect of variations in nonfluency on audience ratings of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335636409382644
56.
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ.TauberS. K.RhodesM. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory?Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.007
57.
MuellerM. L.TauberS. K.DunloskyJ. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0343-6
58.
NelsonJ. R.BalassM.PerfettiC. A. (2005). Differences between written and spoken input in learning new words. Written Language & Literacy, 8(2), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.8.2.04nel
59.
OhtsuboY.WatanabeE.KimJ.KulasJ. T.MulukH.NazarG.WangF.ZhangJ. (2012). Are costly apologies universally perceived as being sincere? A test of the costly apology-perceived sincerity relationship in seven countries. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1556/jep.10.2012.4.3
60.
OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
61.
PerepelkinJ.ZhangD. (2014). Quality alone is not enough to be trustworthy: The mediating role of sincerity perception. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 8(2), 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPHM-02-2013-0006
62.
ReberR.WurtzP.ZimmermannT. D. (2004). Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00049-7
SawyerA. G.LaranJ.XuJ. (2008). The readability of marketing journals: Are award-winning articles better written?Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.1.108
66.
SchriverK. A. (2017). Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 60(4), 343–383. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2765118
67.
SchutteN. S.MalouffJ. M. (2004). University student reading preferences in relation to the big five personality dimensions. Reading Psychology, 25(4), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490522630
68.
SchutteN. S.MalouffJ. M. (2007). Dimensions of reading motivation: Development of an adult reading motivation scale. Reading Psychology, 28(5), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710701568991
69.
SchwarzN. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
SongH.SchwarzN. (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
72.
StrunkW.Jr.WhiteE. B. (2000). The elements of style (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
73.
SungB.VanmanE. J.HartleyN. (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
74.
SwimJ.BorgidaE.MaruyamaG.MyersD. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.409
75.
TanH. T.WangE. Y.YooG. S. (2019). Who likes jargon? The joint effect of jargon type and industry knowledge on investors’ judgments. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 67(2-3), 416–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2019.03.001
76.
ThompsonD. V.InceE. 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
77.
UnkelbachC.GreifenederR. (2013). The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behavior. Psychology Press.
78.
Van der ZandenT.SchoutenA. P.MosM. B. J.KrahmerE. J. (2020). Impression formation on online dating sites: Effects of language errors in profile texts on perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 758–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519878787
79.
WhittleseaB. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235–1253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235
80.
WhittleseaB. W. A. (1997). Production, evaluation and preservation of experiences: Constructive processing in remembering and performance tasks. In MedinD. L. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (37, pp. 211–264). Academic Press.
81.
WhittleseaB. W. A.JacobyL. L.GirardK. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2
82.
WinkielmanP.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
83.
WinkielmanP.SchwarzN.FazendeiroT. A.ReberR. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In MuschJ.KlauerK. C. (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Lawrence Erlbaum.
84.
WissmathB.WeibelD.ReberT. P. (2010). The impact of communication modality on perceived credibility of panel members. Electronic News, 4(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243110361584
