People generally prefer fluent, or easy, information processing experiences. Consequently, processing fluency often impacts individuals’ judgments and evaluations of information. Previous research found that processing fluency influenced headline selection and recognition. The present experiment replicated and extended this work by testing whether type of fluency, comparing conceptual (language difficulty) and perceptual (figure-to-background contrast) fluency manipulations, impacts selection and recognition of news headlines. Results demonstrated that individuals showed strong preferences for fluent news headlines, across both types of fluency manipulations. However, only the conceptual fluency manipulation impacted recognition, such that easy language was associated with higher recognition.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. 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
2.
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
3.
JacobyL. L.WhitehouseK. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.2.126
4.
JohnstonW. A.DarkV. J.JacobyL. L. (1986). Perceptual fluency and recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.3
5.
KimH.JangJ. (2018). The easier the better: How processing fluency influences self-efficacy and behavioral intention in pro-social campaign advertising. Sustainability, 10(12), Article 4777. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124777
6.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
7.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MothesC.PolavinN. (2020). Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication Research, 47(1), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217719596
8.
KurillaB. P.WestermanD. L. (2008). Processing fluency affects subjective claims of recollection. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.82
9.
LangA. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), S57–S80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x
10.
LangA. (2017). Limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP). In RösslerP.HoffnerC. A.ZoonenL. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0077
11.
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
12.
NewmanE. J.SchwarzN. (2018). Good sound, good research: How audio quality influences perceptions of the research and researcher. Science Communication, 40(2), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018759345
13.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.DeMarreeK. G. (2007). The meta–cognitive model (MCM) of attitudes: Implications for attitude measurement, change, and strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.657
14.
RatcliffR. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532. https://doi.org/0033-2909/93
15.
ReberR.FazendeiroT. A.WinkielmanP. (2002). Processing fluency as the source of experiences at the fringe of consciousness. Psyche, 8(10), 1–21.
16.
ReberR.SchwarzN. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386
17.
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
18.
RiggsE. E.ShulmanH. C.LopezR. (2022). Using infographics to reduce the negative effects of jargon on intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19. Public Understanding of Science, 31(6), 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221077385
19.
SchwarzN. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289–308). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15
20.
SchwarzN.BlessH.StrackF.KlumppG.Rittenauer-SchatkaH.SimonsA. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), Article 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195
21.
SchwarzN.JalbertM.NoahT.ZhangL. (2021). Metacognitive experiences as information: Processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1067
22.
ShapiroM. A. (1994). Signal detection measures of recognition memory. In Measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 133–148). Routledge.
23.
ShulmanH. C.BullockO. M. (2019). Using metacognitive cues to amplify message content: A new direction in strategic communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1570472
24.
ShulmanH. C.BullockO. M.RiggsE. E. (2021). The interplay of jargon, motivation, and fatigue while processing COVID-19 crisis communication over time. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(5–6), 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X211043100
25.
ShulmanH. C.MarkowitzD. M.RogersT. (2024). Reading dies in complexity: Online news consumers prefer simple writing. Science Advances, 10(23), Article eadn2555. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn2555
26.
ShulmanH. C.SweitzerM. D. (2018). Varying metacognition through public opinion questions: How language can affect political engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17707557
27.
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
28.
StanislawH.TodorovN. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704
29.
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
