Several studies show that a concept or object is more popular when it is easier to process. The present research applies this notion of processing fluency to the lyrics of all 271 top 5 songs on the United Kingdom chart for each week from 1999 to 2014. The processing fluency of the lyrics was computer scored for readability, presence of rhyme, and complexity, and popularity was assessed in terms of peak chart position and duration of tenure on the chart. After controlling for the energy of the musical component of the song, analyses showed that factors relating to the processing fluency of the lyrics predicted peak popularity but not duration of chart tenure. Significant relationships were observed between peak popularity and both rhyme saturation and basic lyric readability properties.
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
AydinA. E. (2018). Processing fluency: Examining its relationship with thinking style and purchase intention. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 588–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1167765
BasyukT. (2018). Influence of readability on popularization of internet resources. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Systems, 2, 146–156.
7.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Taylor & Francis.
9.
CookS. L.KruparK. (2010). Defining the twentieth century and impacting the twenty-first: Semantic habits created through radio and song. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 67(4), 412–434. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42579071
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2016). I don’t like you because you’re hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 396–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12079
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
13.
FilkukováP.KlempeS. H. (2013). Rhyme as reason in commercial and social advertising. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(5), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12069
14.
FleschR. (1951). The art of clear thinking. Harper.
15.
GaoX.DeraJ.NijhofA. D.WillemsR. M. (2019). Is less readable liked better? The case of font readability in poetry appreciation. PLOS ONE, 14(12), Article e0225757. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225757
16.
HahnL. E.BendersT.SnijdersT. M.FikkertP. (2018). Infants’ sensitivity to rhyme in songs. Infant Behavior and Development, 52, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2018.07.002
17.
HansenJ.DechêneA.WänkeM. (2008). Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 687–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.005
18.
HartR. P.CarrollC. E.SpiarsS. (2013). Diction 7.0: The text analysis program. Digitext.
HerrmannA.ZidansekM.SprottD. E.SpangenbergE. R. (2013). The power of simplicity: Processing fluency and the effects of olfactory cues on retail sales. Journal of Retailing, 89(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.002
21.
HeydukR. G. (1975). Rated preference for musical compositions as it relates to complexity and exposure frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 17(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03204003
22.
HirjeeH.BrownD. (2010, August9–13). Rhyme Analyzer: An analysis tool for rap lyrics [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Utrecht, The Netherlands. https://ismir2010.ismir.net/proceedings/late-breaking-demo-23.pdf
23.
HuronD. (2013). A psychological approach to musical form: The habituation–fluency theory of repetition. Current Musicology, 96, 7–35.
24.
ImH.LennonS. J.StoelL. (2010). The perceptual fluency effect on pleasurable online shopping experience. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4(4), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/17505931011092808
25.
InterianoM.KazemiK.WangL.YangJ.YuZ.KomarovaN. L. (2018). Musical trends and predictability of success in contemporary songs in and out of the top charts. Royal Society Open Science, 5(5), 171274. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171274
26.
JaudD. A.MelnykV. (2020). The effect of text-only versus text-and-image wine labels on liking, taste and purchase intentions: The mediating role of affective fluency. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101964
27.
JohnstonR. R.ChildersG. M. (2021). Musical pantophagy: Is there an effect on changes in preference resulting from repeated exposure?Psychology of Music, 50, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735620987299
28.
LederH. (2013). Next steps in neuroaesthetics: Which processes and processing stages to study?Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031585
29.
LiebersN.BrevesP.SchallhornC.SchrammH. (2019). Fluency in commercial breaks: The impact of repetition and conceptual priming on brand memory, evaluation, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(6), 783–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2018.1536620
30.
MargulisE. H. (2013). Aesthetic responses to repetition in unfamiliar music. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.1.c
31.
MartindaleC.MooreK.BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423259
32.
MartindaleC.MooreK.WestA. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.2190/MCAJ-0GQT-DJTL-LNQD
33.
MayerS.LandwehrJ. R. (2018). Quantifying visual aesthetics based on processing fluency theory: Four algorithmic measures for antecedents of aesthetic preferences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 399–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000187
34.
MenninghausW.BohrnI. C.KnoopC. A.KotzS. A.SchlotzW.JacobsA. M. (2015). Rhetorical features facilitate prosodic processing while handicapping ease of semantic comprehension. Cognition, 143, 48–60.
35.
MiallD. S.KuikenD. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407.
36.
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
37.
NorthA. C.KrauseA. E.RitchieD. (2020). The relationship between pop music and lyrics: A computerized content analysis of the United Kingdom’s weekly top five singles, 1999–2013. Psychology of Music, 49(4), 735–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619896409
38.
NorthA. C.KrauseA. E.SheridanL. P.RitchieD. (2017). Energy, typicality, and music sales: A computerized analysis of 143,353 pieces. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 35(2), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237416688063
39.
NorthA. C.KrauseA. E.SheridanL. P.RitchieD. (2018). Energy, popularity, and the circumplex: A computerized analysis of emotion in 143,353 musical pieces. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 36(2), 127–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237417704339
40.
NorthA. C.KrauseA. E.SheridanL. P.RitchieD. (2019). Popularity, mood, energy, and typicality in music: A computerized analysis of 204,506 pieces. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000165
41.
NorthA. C.KrauseA. E.SheridanL. P.RitchieD. (2020). Comparison of popular music in the United States and the United Kingdom: Computerized analysis of 42,714 pieces. Psychology of Music, 48(6), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619830185
42.
NunesJ. C.OrdaniniA.ValsesiaF. (2015). The power of repetition: Repetitive lyrics in a song increase processing fluency and drive market success. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.12.004
OsgoodC. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197–237.
45.
PancerE.ChandlerV.PooleM.NoseworthyT. J. (2019). How readability shapes social media engagement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1073
RazaA.NanathK. (2020, July16–17). Predicting a hit song with machine learning: Is there an apriori secret formula? [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Data Science Artificial Intelligence and Business Analytics, Medan, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/DATABIA50434.2020.9190613
RenJ.KauffmanR. J. (2017, June5–10). Understanding music track popularity in a social network [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems ECIS, Guimarães, Portugal. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/3960
50.
RussellJ. A. (1978). Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1152–1168.
51.
SchedlM. (2019, May13–17). Genre differences of song lyrics and artist wikis: An analysis of popularity, length, repetitiveness, and readability [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, San Francisco, CA, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313604
52.
SchotanusY.KoopsH. V.EdworthyJ. R. (2018). Interaction between musical and poetic form affects song popularity: The case of the Genevan Psalter. Psychomusicology, 28, 127–151.
53.
SchotanusY. P. (2021). Experiencing Dylan: The effect of formal structure and performance on the popularity and interpretation of two Dylan songs. In GurkeT.WinnettS. (Eds.), Words, music, and the popular (pp. 39–64). Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
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
55.
SinghiA.BrownD. G. (2015, June16–19). Can song lyrics predict hits [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Computer Music Multidisciplinary Research, Plymouth, United Kingdom. https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~browndg/CMMR15data/CMMR2015paper.pdf
56.
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
van OostenP.TangheD.HosteV. (2010, May19–21). Towards an improved methodology for automated readability prediction [Paper presentation]. Paper Presented at the 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation, Paris, France. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1055826
59.
VarnumM. E. W.KremsJ. A.MorrisC.WormleyA.GrossmannI. (2021). Why are song lyrics becoming simpler? A time series analysis of lyrical complexity in six decades of American popular music. PLOS ONE, 16(1), Article e0244576. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244576
60.
VitzP. C. (1966). Affect as a function of stimulus variation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 74–79.
61.
WangL. W.MillerM. J.SchmittM. R.WenF. K. (2013). Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(5), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009
62.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80002-4
63.
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
64.
WrightP. (2003). Criteria and ingredients for successful patient information. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 26(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140511031000091211
65.
ZangerleE.PichlM.SchedlM. (2020). User models for culture-aware music recommendation: fusing acoustic and cultural cues. Transactions of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval, 3, 1–16.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
