Processing fluency or the subjective experience of ease that consumers can experience when processing information is a prominent construct in consumer research. Despite its prevalence, however, its measurement has been inconsistent. The present research addresses this methodological gap in literature by developing and testing a scale for assessing the subjective experience of processing fluency. This scale demonstrates strong evidence of convergent and discriminant validity, reliability, and nomological validity across different processing fluency manipulations and marketing contexts. Use of this scale will allow marketing practitioners and academicians to consistently measure a psychological state that is known to have ubiquitous effects on downstream consumer outcomes including trust, attitude, and choice. Researchers can administer this four-item scale by having participants indicate their agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) on whether a given marketing communication (e.g., ad copy) is (a) difficult to process, (b) difficult to read, (c) takes a long time to process, and (d) difficult to understand.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.
2.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M.EpleyN.EyreR. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136, 569–576.
3.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
4.
BagozziR. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York, NY: John Wiley.
5.
BeardenW. O.NetemeyerR. G.TeelJ. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481.
6.
BergkvistL.RossiterJ. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184.
7.
BrinolP.PettyR. E.TormalaZ. L. (2006). The malleable meaning of subjective ease. Psychological Science, 17, 200–206.
8.
ByrneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
ChowS.HoldenR. (1997). Toward an understanding of loyalty: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 275–298.
10.
ChurchillG. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
11.
ChurchillG. A. (1999). Marketing research: Methodological foundations. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
12.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
13.
CruzR. E.LeonhardtJ. M.PezzutiT. (2017). Second person pronouns enhance consumer involvement and brand attitude. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 104–116.
14.
DarleyW. K.BlanksonC.LuethgeD. J. (2010). Toward an integrated framework for online consumer behavior and decision making process: A review. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 94–116.
15.
DeMottaY.ChaoMC-hKramerT. (2016). The effect of dialectical thinking on the integration of contradictory information. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26, 40–52.
16.
De WulfK.Odekerken-SchröderG.IacobucciD. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65, 33–50.
17.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
18.
GrafL. K. M.MayerS.LandwehrJ. R. (2017). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28, 393–411.
19.
HaggerM. S.GucciardiD. F.ChatzisarantisN. L. D. (2017). On nomological validity and auxiliary assumptions: The importance of simultaneously testing effects in social cognitive theories applied to health behavior and some guidelines. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1933.
20.
HansenJ.DechêneA.WänkeM. (2008). Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 687–691.
21.
HaugtvedtC. P.PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 239–260.
22.
HullandJ.MillerJ. (2018). “Keep on Turkin’”?Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 789–794.
23.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.
24.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
KostykA.LeonhardtJ.NiculescuM. (2017). Easy to process, easy to trust: Online ratings format affects consumer trust. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 11, 131–141.
26.
KostykA.NiculescuM.LeonhardtJ. (2017). Less is more: Online consumer ratings’ format affects purchase intentions and processing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16, 434–441.
27.
LabrooA. A.DharR.SchwarzN. (2008). Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 819–831.
28.
LahamS. M.AlterA. L.GoodwinG. P. (2009). Easy on the mind, easy on the wrongdoer: Discrepantly fluent violations are deemed less morally wrong. Cognition, 112, 462–466.
29.
LandwehrJ. R.McGillA. L.HerrmannA. (2011). It’s got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75, 132–146.
30.
LeeA. Y.KellerP. A.SternthalB. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 735–747.
31.
LeeA. Y.LabrooA. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 151–165.
32.
LeonhardtJ. M.CatlinJ. R.PirouzD. M. (2015). Is your product facing the ad’s center? Facing direction affects processing fluency and ad evaluation. Journal of Advertising, 44, 315–325.
33.
LowreyT. M. (1998). The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 187–206.
34.
MacintoshG.LockshinL. S. (1997). Retail relationships and store loyalty: A multi-level perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 487–497.
35.
MonahanJ. L.MurphyS. T.ZajoncR. B. (2000). Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general, and diffuse effects. Psychological Science, 11, 462–466.
36.
NovemskyN.DharR.SchwarzN.SimonsonI. (2007). Preference fluency in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 347–356.
37.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38.
OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 139–156.
39.
PeterJ. P.ChurchillG. A. (1986). Relationships among Research Design Choices and Psychometric Properties of Rating Scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 1–10.
ReberR.SchwarzN. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338–342.
42.
ReberR.WinkielmanP.SchwarzN. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.
43.
RennekampK. (2012). Processing fluency and investors’ reactions to disclosure readability. Journal of Accounting Research, 50, 1319–1354.
44.
SchwarzN. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332–348.
45.
SchwarzN. (2015). Which mission? Thoughts about the past and future of BDT. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 1, 53–58.
46.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D. (2006). Intuitive confidence: Choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135, 409–428.
47.
SimonsonI. (2015). The BDT effect and future: A reply to John Lynch and Norbert Schwarz. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 1, 59–73.
48.
SkurnikI.YoonC.ParkD. C.SchwarzN. (2005). How warnings about false claims become recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 713–724.
49.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986–988.
50.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky. Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20, 135–138.
51.
von NeumannJ.MorgensternO. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
53.
WhittleseaB. W. A.WilliamsL. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141–165.
54.
WhittleseaB. W. A.WilliamsL. D. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 3–13.
55.
WinkielmanP.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation leads to positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.
56.
WinkielmanP.SchwarzN.FazendeiroT.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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
57.
WolfE. J.HarringtonK. M.ClarkS. L.MillerMW. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 913–934.
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.
