More than 200 studies suggest that metacognitive difficulty reduces the liking of an object. In contrast to those findings, the authors demonstrate that the effects of metacognitive experiences on evaluation are sensitive to the consumption domain. In the domain of everyday goods, metacognitive difficulty reduces the attractiveness of a product by making it appear unfamiliar. However, in the context of special-occasion products, for which consumers value exclusivity, metacognitive difficulty increases the attractiveness of a product by making it appear unique or uncommon. The authors reconcile their findings with prior research by positing that the effect of metacognitive experiences on evaluation depends on the naive theory people associate with product consumption. Four studies demonstrate the proposed effect and test for the role of lay theories in the interpretation of metacognitive experiences. The authors conclude with a discussion of theoretical and marketing implications.
AdavalRashmi, and MonroeKent B. (2002), “Automatic Construction and Use of Contextual Information for Pro ducts and Price Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28(March), 572–88.
2.
AikenLeona S., and WestStephen G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.
3.
AlterAdam L., OppenheimerDaniel M., EpleyNicholas, and EyreRebecca N. (2007), “Overcoming Intuition: Metacognitive Difficulty Activates Analytic Reasoning,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–76.
4.
AndradeEduardo, B. (2005), “ Behavioral Consequences of Affect: Combining Evaluative and Regulatory Mechanisms,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32(Dec ember), 355–62.
5.
BarghJohn, A. (1997), “The Automaticity of Everyday Life,” in Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 10, WyerR.S., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–61.
6.
BarghJohn A., and ChartrandT.L. (2000), “The Mind in the Middle: A Practical Guide to Priming and Automaticity Research,” in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, ReisH.T., and JuddC.M., eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 253–85.
7.
BornsteinRobert, F. (1989), “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968–1987,”Psychological Bulletin, 106(September), 265–89.
8.
BrinolPablo, PettyRichard E., and TormalaZakary L. (2006), “The Malleable Meaning of Subjective Ease,”Psychological Science, 17(3), 200–206.
9.
FazioR.H. (1990), “A Practical Guide to the Use of Response Latencies in Social Psychological Research,” in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 11, HendrickC., and ClarkM.S., eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 74–97.
10.
JacobyLarry L., KelleyColleen M., and DywanJane (1989), “Memory Attributions,” in Varieties of Memory and Consciousness: Essays in Honor of Endel Tulving, RoedigerHenry L., and CraikFergus I.M., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 391–422.
11.
JaniszewskiChris (1993), “Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(December), 376–92.
12.
KimHakkyun, RaoAkshay, and LeeAngela Y. (2009), “It's Time to Vote: Fit Between Construal Level and Temporal Distance on Political Persuasion,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 877–89.
13.
LabrooAparna A., DharRavi, and SchwarzNorbert (2008), “Of Frog Wines and Frowning Watches: Semantic Priming, Perceptual Fluency and Brand Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 819–31.
14.
LabrooAparna A., and KimSara (2009), “The ‘Instrumentality’ Heuristic: Why Metacognitive Difficulty Is Desirable During Goal Pursuit,”Psychological Science, 20(1), 127–34.
15.
LabrooAparna A., and LeeAngela Y. (2006), “Between Two Brands: A Goal-Fluency Account of Brand Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43(August), 374–85.
16.
LeeAngela (2001), “The Mere Exposure Effect: An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation Revisited,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1255–66.
17.
NovemskyNathan, DharRavi, SchwarzNorbert, and SimonsonItamar (2007), “Preference Fluency in Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44(August), 347–56.
18.
ReberRolf, WinkielmanPiotr, and SchwarzNorbert (1998), “Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments,”Psychological Science, 29(1), 45–48.
19.
SchwarzNorbert (2004), “Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–48.
20.
SchwarzNorbert (2010), “Meaning in Context: Metacognitive Experiences,” in The Mind in Context, BarretL.F., MesquitaB., and SmithE., eds. New York: Guilford Press, 105–125.
21.
SchwarzNorbert, BlessHerbert, StrackFritz, KlumppGisela, Rittenauer-SchatkaHelga, and SimonsAnnette (1991), “Ease of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the Availability Heuristic,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195–202.
22.
ShenHao, YuweiJiang, and AdavalRashmi (2009), “Contrast and Assimilation Effects of Processing Fluency,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36(February), 876–89.
23.
SongHyunjin, and SchwarzNorbert (2008), “If It's Hard to Read, It's Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation,”Psychological Science, 19(10), 986–88.
24.
SrullThomas K., and WyerRobert S. (1979), “The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1660–72.
25.
UnkelbachChristian (2006), “The Learned Interpretation of Cognitive Fluency,”Psychological Science, 17(4), 339–45.
26.
WankeMichaela, BohnerGerd, and JurkowitschAndreas (1997), “There Are Many Reasons to Drive a BMW: Does Imagined Ease of Argument Generation Influence Attitudes?”Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 170–77.
27.
WhittleseaBruce W., JacobyLarry L., and GirardKrista (1990), “Illusions of Immediate Memory: Evidence of an Attributional Basis for Feelings of Familiarity and Perceptual Quality,”Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 716–32.
28.
WinerBenjamin, J. (1971), Statistical Principles in Experimental Design.New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
WinkielmanPiotr, SchwarzNorbert, FazendeiroTedra A., and ReberRolf (2003), “The Hedonic Marking of Processing Fluency: Implications for Evaluative Judgment,” in The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion, MuschJochen, and KlauerKarl Christoph, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 189–217.
30.
ZajoncRobert, B. (1968), “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9(2, Part 2), 1–27.
