To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

How to transfigure the Wikipedia

Would you like Wikipedia to always look as professional and up-to-date? We have created a browser extension. It will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic of the WIKI 2 technology.

Try it — you can delete it anytime.

Install in 5 seconds
4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
Great Wikipedia has got greater.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Processing fluency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Processing fluency is the ease with which information is processed. Perceptual fluency is the ease of processing stimuli based on manipulations to perceptual quality. Retrieval fluency is the ease with which information can be retrieved from memory.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 251
    714
    960
    7 797 783
    17 823
  • How Processing Fluency Impacts Web Marketing - Whiteboard Friday
  • "We Call It Processing Fluency" - Promoting Environmental Friendly Behavior at RSM
  • Behavioral fluency with see-write answers basic multiplication facts
  • Think Fast, Talk Smart: Communication Techniques
  • What's the reason and rhyme for rhymes?

Transcription

"Howdy Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week I want to start with a conundrum. In fact, it's a conundrum from a research project that is based on a fluency bias. Fluency bias being one of the many cognitive biases in the field of psychology. Let me start by asking you a question. Do you believe the statement, "What alcohol conceals, sobriety unmasks"? So a large number of participants in a research study were asked whether they believed this, and a second group, another group of participants in the same study were asked separately whether they believed the statement, "What alcohol conceals, sobriety reveals." What do you think were the results? Take a minute to guess. People believed this one massively more by a shocking margin. And you would think to yourself, "Well, I am not nearly so foolish a person as to think that my belief in a statement like this would be biased by rhyme, conceals/reveals," and yet that is exactly what happened time and time again. This study can be reproduced with success. Far more people believe "What alcohol conceals, sobriety reveals," rather than the alternate use of the word "unmasks." This is called, one of my favorite cognitive biases in the world, the "rhyme as reason" bias. Rhyme as reason. Let me give you another famous example that some of you have probably already jumped to. Do you remember Johnny Cochran in the famous O.J. Simpson trial, declaring to the jury, "If the gloves does not fit, you must acquit. If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." So human beings, especially in the marketing and technology world, are trained, we are trained to think that people are logical, that people consider the rational outcomes, the rational inputs, and they come to a rational decision based on those inputs. And yet a cognitive bias, like rhyme as reason, would suggest that's not really the case at all. We are biased by all sorts of things. Rhyme as reason is one of many fluency biases. The fluency bias or the fluency processing bias essentially suggests that things which are more easy for us to comprehend, which are more simple for us to digest, lots of good examples here. Attractive people on magazine covers are more likely to draw our eyes. Concepts that are simple for us to understand, phrases that we've heard many times, things that relate to things in our memory, all of these are simpler for us to understand and therefore more credible, more believable, and more likely, in the marketing world, to induce action. Let's take this over to web marketing for a second and think about things where this happens. Page speed load time. When something loads more quickly, not only are we more likely to stay on the page, we're more likely to trust the brand more. We're more likely to recommend it to others. We're more likely to use it ourselves. In fact, when Microsoft did a famous research study where they increased the amount of time before search results were returned by a mere 250 milliseconds, which is undetectable to the human eye, right? If you were shown a film strip and then there was a 250 millisecond cut, your eye could not detect it. Your brain would not know that you had been shown that image, and yet what they found was that abandonment rates went up. People searched less, and they searched less often, and they were less likely to return to the site. This is fluency bias at work. The aesthetic attractiveness of a website's or a web page's layout is likely to drive us to take more action or to take less action, to recommend something, to tweet it, to share it, to link to it. No wonder, right? The pronounceability of a brand name. One of my favorite, favorite examples is that a study looked at the pronounceability of stock market ticker symbols during their IPO, at a public market offering. And you would think to yourself, "Now, wait a minute. These are some of the smartest human beings in the world, who are working at hedge funds, who are working at large investment portfolios. There is no way that they are going to be taken in by the pronounceability of a stock ticker symbol." Why does it even matter whether a stock ticker symbol is pronounceable or not? And yet pronounceability has a high correlation with more successful IPOs in their first two weeks after offering. Insanity. Insanity. We are all subject to this. No matter how smart you believe yourself or you audience to be, fluency biases, processing fluency, and cognitive biases as a whole are undoubtedly having an effect on your audience. The familiarity of user experience. Some of you have seen some of the screen shots from Moz Analytics and probably maybe a few of you have gotten access to the private beta, and over the next couple of months more people will. Inside that product you'll notice that it looks very similar to another product. Right? There's sort of a, "Oh, look at that. There's the navigation on the left-hand side. There's a little graph up here, and the time frame is over here, and then there's a chart of data down here." That reminds me a lot of Google Analytics, which many people who are watching this Whiteboard Friday and might be using Moz Analytics are almost certainly familiar with. And that is no error. That familiarity of user experience, that, "Oh, yes. I have been here before. Oh, yes. I am familiar with how to use a web analytics product or a search engine or an e-commerce site." There's a reason that these follow into patterns and why these patterns are successful when they are repeated and deviation from those patterns can actually be dangerous. The legibility of font and text in a blog post, in a piece of content can influence whether it's shared more or less. The ease of discovery and shareability of something. If something is very easy to copy and paste inside my browser so that I can easily tweet it, or if I am sent a link by somebody in an email that just says, "Hey, if you would retweet this that would be great," and it goes directly to their tweet, wow, this is very easy. It's very easy for me to share it, and therefore I am more likely to do so. Processing fluency dictates it is thus. I would urge you, whenever you're thinking about your marketing campaigns, whether those be in the SEO world with things like your domain name, your title, your URL. Your URL, in a study by Bing, domain name and URL, the little part in the search results that's green, actually had a significant biasing effect on where clicks went. Almost as significant, in fact, a little more significant than whether there was a rel=author profile picture, according to Google. These are separate studies, but the data should match up. The readability of that content. Social, the sharing time. When was it shared? Was it shared at a time when I'm going to see it? Was it shared at a time when I'm likely to be on a device where I'm more likely to share? Maybe that's mobile if it's a retweet. Maybe that's desktop if it's something where I actually want someone to take action, or a laptop, or a tablet. The length of the content. Length is very much a part of processing fluency because very long articles, depends on the subject matter, but we have a tendency not to read or to comprehend and process all of that information. In advertising, your copy, your layout, your design, this is classic ad agency world stuff that people have been doing for decades. And in content, the style, the UX, the complexity of that content. Again, another really good example, Moz's own search ranking factors, which are produced every two years, and this summer we're coming out with a new version. It will be first presented at MozCon and then appear on the web. But the complexity of the new UI, that we launched in 2011, made it such that engagement on those pages was far less because you had to click over to different tabs to actually see the numbers, as opposed to seeing it all on one page. It reduced the shareability, the number of links it got, as compared to when it was done in 2005, 2007, and 2009. Fascinating, fascinating stuff. If you were investing in web marketing channels, in content marketing and SEO, in social, and advertising of any kind, I would urge you to think about the fluency of the work that you're producing and whether people can really consume it as effectively as you're hoping they can. This can have a big impact on the effectiveness of the work that you do. All right everyone. I hope you've enjoyed this edition of Whiteboard Friday, and we'll see you again next week. Take care."

Research

Research in cognitive neuroscience and psychology has shown that processing fluency influences different kinds of judgments. For instance, perceptual fluency can contribute to the experience of familiarity when fluent processing is attributed to the past. Repeating the presentation of a stimulus, also known as priming, is one method for enhancing fluency. Jacoby and Dallas in 1981 argued that items from past experience are processed more fluently.[2] This becomes a learned experience throughout our lifetime such that fluent items can be attributed to the past. Therefore, people sometimes take fluency as an indication that a stimulus is familiar even though the sense of familiarity is false.[3] Perceptual fluency literature has been dominated with research that posits that fluency leads to familiarity. Behavioral measures of fluency do not have the temporal resolution to properly investigate the interaction between fluency and familiarity. Event-related potentials (ERPs) are a method of averaging brainwaves that has been successful in dissociating different cognitive mechanisms due to small time scale that brainwaves are measured.[4] One study was able to use a manipulation of visual clarity to change perceptual fluency during a recognition task. This manipulation effected ERPs for fluency and familiarity at different times and locations in the brain, leading them to believe that these two mechanisms do not come from the same source.[5]

Further evidence has shown that artificial techniques can be used to trick people into believing they have encountered a stimulus previously. In one experiment,[6] participants were presented symbols which consisted of highly familiar symbols, less familiar symbols and novel symbols. Participants were required to report whether they had encountered any of the symbols presented before the experiment. A 35 millisecond flash preceded each symbol, in which the same, different or no symbol was flashed. It was found that the brief flash of stimulus boosted the fluency of the target item. When the same symbol was flashed, participants’ ratings of having encountered the symbol previously increased. This example illustrates that fluent processing can induce a feeling of familiarity.

Fluency and familiarity have been shown to lead to the mere exposure effect. Research has found that repetition of a stimulus can lead to fluent processing which leads to a feeling of liking.[7] In this experiment, participants were presented with unfamiliar faces either three or nine times. After presentation, pairs of faces were shown to participants, each consisting of an old and new face. Results showed that participants gave higher rates of liking to the repeated faces. The mere exposure effect is eliminated if fluent processing is disrupted. Topolinski et al. (2014)[8] explained that the fluency created by pronunciation plays a vital role in increasing fondness for a stimulus. In the experiment,[8] participants were shown unfamiliar adverts in a cinema. The control group watched the adverts with a sugar cube in their mouth. Therefore, there was no interference in pronunciation in the control group. The experimental group watched the adverts whilst eating popcorn, which meant there was oral interference. One week later, participants rated their liking of products. In the control group, the mere exposure effect was observed, where old products had higher ratings than new products. In the experimental group, the mere exposure effect was abolished by interfering with fluency of pronunciation during presentation of stimulus.

Later research observed that high perceptual fluency increases the experience of positive affect.[9] Research with psychophysiological methods corroborated this positive effect on affective experience: easy-to-perceive stimuli were not only judged more positively but increased activation in the zygomaticus major muscle, the so-called "smiling muscle".[10] The notion that processing fluency is inherently positive led to the processing fluency theory of aesthetic pleasure,[11] and it has been used to explain people's negative reactions towards migrants, who appear to be more difficult to process than non-migrants.[12]

Research relating to processing fluency and product design has shown that when the form of a product is highly unusual, it becomes difficult to process and is viewed less favourably than fluent counterparts.[13] There is significant evidence that when consumers are presented with multiple choices, they will view objects more positively and more aesthetically pleasing when surrounded by congruent imagery.[14] While consumers enjoy a moderate source of incongruity, too much disorder and unfamiliarity lead to feelings of being overwhelmed.[13] Fluent product design has shown to encourage consumers to engage in approach activities such as touching and spending extended time viewing the product. [13]

Other studies have shown that when presenting people with a factual statement, manipulations that make the statement easier to mentally process—even totally nonsubstantive changes like writing it in a cleaner font or making it rhyme or simply repeating it—can alter judgment of the truth of the statement, along with evaluation of the intelligence of the statement's author.[15] This is called the "illusion of truth effect". Multiple studies have found that subjects were more likely to judge easy-to-read statements as true.[16][17][18] This means that perceived beauty and judged truth have a common underlying experience, namely processing fluency. Indeed, experiments showed that beauty is used as an indication for the correctness of mathematical solutions. This supports the idea that beauty is intuitively seen as truth.[19] Processing fluency may be one of the foundations of intuition[20] and the "Aha!" experience.[21][22]

The truth effect can be induced by colour differences in statements as well. In a study,[23] participants were presented with statements, some of which were true and the rest being false. Half these statements were presented in high contrast colours and the other half were presented in low contrast colours. Independent of truth, participants judged the high contrast statements as true. Participants were also quicker to make judgements about the high contrast statements compared to the low contrast statements. The contrast differences in statements increased fluency.

Fluency has been shown to affect judgements of humour. In one study,[24] participants were presented with jokes which were in easy to read or hard to read fonts. Participants were asked to rate which jokes they believed were more humorous. Participants gave higher ratings to jokes in easy to read fonts. It has been predicted that the jokes in easy to read fonts feel fluent, as they are easier to pronounce and this results in higher ratings.[24] The fluent processing has been misattributed to the humour of the statement.

As high processing fluency indicates that the interaction of a person with the environment goes smoothly,[25] a person does not need to pay particular attention to the environment. By contrast, low processing fluency means that there are problems in the interaction with the environment which requires more attention and an analytical processing style to solve the problem. Indeed, people process information more shallowly when processing fluency is high and employ an analytical thinking style when processing fluency is low.[26][27]

A 2010 study demonstrated that the long-known effect of illegible handwriting in an essay on grading is mediated by a lack of processing fluency (and not, for example, negative stereotypes related to illegible writing).[28]

Applications

Basic research on processing fluency has been applied to marketing,[29] to business names, and to finance. For example, psychologists have determined that, during the week following their IPO, stocks perform better when their names are fluent/easy to pronounce and when their ticker symbols are pronounceable (e.g., KAG) vs. unpronounceable (e.g., KGH).[30]

See also

References

  1. ^ Alter, A. L.; Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). "Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Review. 13 (3): 219–235. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.586.5634. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564. PMID 19638628. S2CID 2696881. Archived from the original on 2016-04-26.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  2. ^ Jacoby, Larry L.; Dallas, Mark (1981). "On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 110 (3): 306–340. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306.
  3. ^ Whittlesea, Bruce W. A. (1993). "Illusions of familiarity". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 19 (6): 1235–1253. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235.
  4. ^ Rugg, Michael D.; Curran, Tim (2007). "Event-related potentials and recognition memory". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 11 (6): 251–257. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.004. PMID 17481940. S2CID 1249891.
  5. ^ Leynes, P. Andrew; Zish, Kevin (2012). "Event-related potential (ERP) evidence for fluency-based recognition memory". Neuropsychologia. 50 (14): 3240–3249. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.10.004. PMID 23063967. S2CID 24815127.
  6. ^ Brown, Alan S.; Marsh, Elizabeth J. (2009-05-01). "Creating Illusions of Past Encounter Through Brief Exposure". Psychological Science. 20 (5): 534–538. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02337.x. PMID 19492436. S2CID 16445449.
  7. ^ Newell, Ben R.; Shanks, David R. (2007-01-01). "Recognising what you like: Examining the relation between the mere-exposure effect and recognition". European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 19 (1): 103–118. doi:10.1080/09541440500487454. ISSN 0954-1446. S2CID 16327127.
  8. ^ a b Topolinski, Sascha; Lindner, Sandy; Freudenberg, Anna (2014-04-01). "Popcorn in the cinema: Oral interference sabotages advertising effects". Journal of Consumer Psychology. Sensory perception, embodiment, and grounded cognition: Implications for consumer behavior. 24 (2): 169–176. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.09.008.
  9. ^ Reber, R.; Winkielman, P.; Schwarz, N. (1998). "Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments". Psychological Science. 9: 45–48. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.232.8868. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00008. S2CID 238063.
  10. ^ Winkielman, Piotr; Cacioppo, John 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989. PMID 11761320.
  11. ^ Reber, Rolf; Schwarz, Norbert; Winkielman, Piotr (2004). "Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience?". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 8 (4): 364–382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3. hdl:1956/594. PMID 15582859. S2CID 1868463.
  12. ^ Rubin, Mark; Paolini, Stefania; Crisp, Richard J. (2010). "A processing fluency explanation of bias against migrants" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46: 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.006. hdl:1959.13/930247. Archived from the original on 2016-06-13.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  13. ^ a b c Bloch, Peter H. (1995). "Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response". Journal of Marketing. 59 (3): 16–29. doi:10.2307/1252116. ISSN 0022-2429. JSTOR 1252116.
  14. ^ Reber, Rolf; Schwarz, Norbert (1999-09-01). "Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth". Consciousness and Cognition. 8 (3): 338–342. doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0386. ISSN 1053-8100. PMID 10487787. S2CID 2626302.
  15. ^ Bennett, Drake (January 31, 2010). "Easy=True: How "cognitive fluency" shapes what we believe, how we invest, and who will become a supermodel". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on June 13, 2016.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  16. ^ Reber, Rolf; Schwarz, Norbert (1999). "Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth". Consciousness and Cognition. 8 (3): 338–342. doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0386. PMID 10487787. S2CID 2626302.
  17. ^ Newman, Eryn J.; Garry, Maryanne; Bernstein, Daniel M.; Kantner, Justin; Lindsay, D. Stephen (2012-10-01). "Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 19 (5): 969–974. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0292-0. ISSN 1531-5320. PMID 22869334. S2CID 8677269.
  18. ^ Waldman, Katy (2014-09-03). "The Science of Truthiness". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2016-10-03.
  19. ^ Reber, Rolf; Brun, Morten; Mitterndorfer, Karoline (2008). "The use of heuristics in intuitive mathematical judgment" (PDF). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 15 (6): 1174–1178. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1174. hdl:1956/2734. PMID 19001586. S2CID 5297500.
  20. ^ Topolinski, Sascha; Strack, Fritz (2009). "The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 138 (1): 39–63. doi:10.1037/a0014678. PMID 19203169. Archived from the original on 2016-06-13.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  21. ^ Topolinski, S.; Reber, R. (2010). "Gaining Insight into the "Aha" Experience" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 19 (6): 402–405. doi:10.1177/0963721410388803. S2CID 145057045. Archived from the original on 2016-06-13.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  22. ^ Wray, H. (January 2011). "Aha! The 23-Across Phenomenon". APS Observer. Vol. 24, no. 1. Association for Psychological Science. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  23. ^ Unkelbach, Christian (2007-01-01). "Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 33 (1): 219–230. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.219. ISSN 1939-1285. PMID 17201563.
  24. ^ a b Topolinski, Sascha (2014-07-04). "A processing fluency-account of funniness: Running gags and spoiling punchlines". Cognition and Emotion. 28 (5): 811–820. doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.863180. ISSN 0269-9931. PMID 24320137. S2CID 25039892.
  25. ^ Winkielman, P.; Schwarz, N.; Reber, R.; Fazendeiro, T. (2003). "The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment" (PDF). In Musch, Jochen; Klauer, Karl C. (eds.). The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. pp. 189–217. ISBN 9781135640590. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-02-27.
  26. ^ Alter, Adam L.; Oppenheimer, Daniel M.; Epley, Nicholas; Eyre, Rebecca N. (2007). "Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 136 (4): 569–576. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569. PMID 17999571. Archived from the original on 2016-06-02.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  27. ^ Song, Hyunjin; Schwarz, Norbert (2008). "Fluency and the Detection of Misleading Questions: Low Processing Fluency Attenuates the Moses Illusion". Social Cognition. 26 (6): 791–799. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791.
  28. ^ Greifeneder, R.; Alt, A.; Bottenberg, K.; Seele, T.; Zelt, S.; Wagener, D. (2010). "On Writing Legibly: Processing Fluency Systematically Biases Evaluations of Handwritten Material". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 1 (3): 230–237. doi:10.1177/1948550610368434. S2CID 57062084.
  29. ^ Schwarz, Norbert (2004). "Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 14 (4): 332–348. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2. hdl:2027.42/142285. SSRN 532222.
  30. ^ Alter, A.L.; Oppenheimer, D.M. (2006). "Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (24): 9369–9372. Bibcode:2006PNAS..103.9369A. doi:10.1073/pnas.0601071103. PMC 1482615. PMID 16754871. Open access icon

Further reading

This page was last edited on 19 April 2022, at 21:09
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.
Contact WIKI 2
Introduction
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy