Psychology
2013. Vol.4, No.3A, 318-324
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.43A046
318
The Effects of the Metacognitive Cue of Fluency on
Evaluations about Taste Perception
Antonia Mantonakis1, Bryan Galiffi1, Ummugulsum Aysan1, Randi Beckett2
1Department of Marketing, International Business and Strategy, Goodman School of Business,
Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada
2Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada
Received December 21st, 2012; revised January 22nd, 2013; accepted February 21st, 2013
The metacognitive cue of fluency is known to affect consumers’ evaluations and judgments (Schwarz,
2004). We questioned whether this effect extends to perceived taste experiences, and whether knowledge
moderates the effect of fluency on taste evaluations. Across 3 experiments we demonstrate that the meta-
cognitive cue of fluency is used by consumers in evaluating their taste experiences. Whereas disfluent
cues are associated with lower taste evaluations for a utilitarian product (Experiment 1), disfluent cues are
associated with higher taste evaluations for a hedonic product, especially for knowledgeable consumers
(Experiment 2), when compared to a no-label (control) condition. Fluency cues that are intrinsic to the
product (e.g., ingredients) however do not have the same effect on judgment about hedonic products (Ex-
periment 3). These findings are important for designing product labels.
Keywords: Metacognitive Cues; Fluency; Consumers; Sensory Perceptions
Introduction
Imagine a consumer is browsing the supermarket, and is of-
fered a taste test of a new orange juice. The consumer can not
only taste the juice, but can evaluate the juice based on the look
of the packaging, the price, and brand-related information.
When consumers evaluate food and beverage products for con-
sumption, the decision to purchase is influenced by many fac-
tors such as these. The consumer may rely on product flavor
and stated ingredients (intrinsic qualities; Levin & Gaeth, 1988),
or product label design and brand-name information (extrinsic
qualities; Leclerc, Schmitt, & Dube, 1994). Recent research
suggests that information extrinsic to a product may actually
distort the sensory qualities of a product (Litt & Shiv, 2012),
making the understanding of such extrinsic cues, as well as
their effect on product judgment, of upmost importance to con-
sumer psychology researchers. In this paper a cue that might be
used by consumers in forming product evaluations is examined:
the metacognitive cue of fluency. For instance, how easy or
difficult is it to pronounce the name of the orange juice?
Fluency is the subjective ease of attempting a cognitive task,
induced by a variety of manipulations produced by many dif-
ferent stimuli (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). There are two
types of fluency that are more applicable to product labels than
others. Perceptual fluency is the ease of perceiving stimuli
arising from visual clarity (e.g., fluent font versus disfluent font;
Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009), and phonological fluency is the
ease experienced when pronouncing words, affected by letter
combinations (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2008a, 2008b), syllable
transitions (Shah & Oppenheimer, 2007), and rhyming ele-
ments (McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 2000). The metacognitive
cue of fluency derived from product label information might
also serve as a cue to product judgments. But in what ways
would these metacognitive cues affect consumers’ judgments?
It is theorized that consumers possess naïve theories, which
are thoughts and feelings surrounding the meaning of specific
fluency experiences, created from memories of past product
pairings that produce fluency expectations (Schwarz, 2004).
The context specific hypothesis expands on how fluency expec-
tations influence consumers’ impressions, moderated by prod-
uct type (Pocheptsova et al., 2010). The notion is that hedonic
products, such as wine or gourmet cheese, are expected to be
less familiar and more difficult to recognize. Therefore, hedonic
products are preferred when paired with disfluent cues because
these cues create the perception that the product is unfamiliar.
This perceived unfamiliarity creates the impression of novelty,
uniqueness (Song & Schwarz, 2009), rarity, and exclusivity;
desired hedonic product characteristics (Pocheptsova et al.,
2010).
The level of fluency preferred across different product cate-
gories within the same product type demonstrates the complex-
ity of fluency expectations and the influence of fluency on
consumers’ judgments (Schwarz, 2004). These fluency expec-
tations are based on a person’s naïve theories about the cate-
gory or product (Schwarz, 2004). To illustrate, participants
were shown advertisements regarding everyday cheese or gour-
met cheese, either paired with a disfluent perceptual description
or a fluent perceptual description. Overall, participants indi-
cated they were more likely to purchase the everyday cheese,
verifying the hedonic nature of gourmet cheese. But the results
also showed that participants reported higher desirability rat-
ings for the everyday cheese when it was paired with an easy-
to-read font, and the gourmet cheese when it was paired with a
difficult-to-read font (Pocheptsova et al., 2010). These findings
support the notion that expected levels of fluency paired with
different product types can lead to enhanced desirability. Im-
bedded within the context specific hypothesis, this study about
cheese supports the notion that everyday, or utilitarian products

A. MANTONAKIS ET AL.
are preferred with fluent cues, whereas hedonic products are
pre- ferred with disfluent cues (Pocheptsova et al., 2010).
The current research focuses on the effect of fluency on con-
sumers’ actual satisfaction of a product during consumption. It
is known that taste perception is suggestible and ambiguous
(Elder & Krishna, 2010; Krishna, 2012) and is affected by in-
trinsic (Levin & Gaeth, 1988) and extrinsic cues (Leclerc et al.,
1994), therefore, the metacognitive cue of fluency may influ-
ence consumers’ experience of taste.
The current set of experiments makes several key contribu-
tions to the sensory, cognitive, and consumer psychology lit-
eratures. First, this study examines the effects of the metacogni-
tive cue of fluency on actual taste perception, as opposed to
taste ratings (cf. Song & Schwarz, 2009; Pocheptsova et al.,
2010). Second, by examining taste perception, this research
examines taste-related evaluations for both fluent and disfluent
label conditions in comparison to evaluations of a no-label
(control) condition. This type of control has never been em-
ployed in examinations of fluency before. Third, in examining
taste perception, this research explores the effects of different
fluency cues on relatively utilitarian (Experiment 1) versus
hedonic (Experiment 2) products. Fourth, by examining taste
perception, these studies examine not only the role of fluency
cues derived from extrinsic product cues (Experiments 1 and 2),
but also intrinsic product cues (Experiment 3). Finally, this
research examines the role of product knowledge in the effects
of the metacognitive cue of fluency on taste-related evaluations.
Utilitarian and Hedonic Product Pilot Study
Experimental Design and Procedure
Twelve participants were recruited from Brock University to
participate in this within-subjects pilot study. Using Qualtrics
software, participants were presented with a total of four ques-
tions in random order. The questions were: “Do you consider
orange juice to be a utilitarian product?” “Do you consider wine
to be a utilitarian product?” “Do you consider wine to be a he-
donic product?” “Do you consider orange juice to be a hedonic
product?” Each of the four questions were answered on a 7-
point scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much).
Results
Paired samples t-tests were performed for the set of utili-
tarian questions, and for the set of hedonic questions. For uti-
litarian perceptions, participants rated orange juice to be higher
(M = 4.83) than wine (M = 3.17, t(11) = 2.54, p < .03). For
hedonic perceptions, participants rated wine to be higher (M =
5.58) than orange juice (M = 3.50, t(11) = 4.61, p < .001).
Therefore, orange juice was used as the utilitarian product in
Experiment 1 and wine was used as the hedonic product in
Experiments 2 and 3.
Experiment 1: Perceptual Fluency Derived from
Extrinsic Information on Utilitarian Product
Evaluations
The purpose of Experiment 1 was to examine the effect of an
extrinsic fluency cue on product judgment. Namely, this ex-
periment varied whether the name of an alleged new orange
juice was easy versus difficult to read, and examined partici-
pants’ evaluation of the taste of the orange juice. The name was
presented either before, or after the actual tasting, so as to ex-
amine the effect of fluency on actual taste (versus ratings; Lee,
Frederick, & Ariely, 2006). Based on the context specific hy-
pothesis (Pocheptsova et al., 2010), it was predicted that dis-
fluent cues will decrease perceived sensory experiences for
utilitarian products.
Experimental Design
One-hundred-thirty-seven participants (100 women, 37 men)
between the ages of 18 - 62 (M = 22, SD = 5.77) were recruited
from Brock University and the Niagara community. The study
employed a 2 (difficult-to-read font, easy-to-read font) × 2 (la-
bel shown before, after) between-subjects design with readabil-
ity and timing as factors. Readability was manipulated by pre-
senting a fictitious label associated with the product (the grove
name, Knollwood) either in easy-to-read black 12 pt Arial
(KNOLLWOOD) or difficult-to-read 12 pt Brush Script MT
(KNOLLWOOD; Song & Schwarz, 2008) font. The grove name
was presented following the sentence “The oranges for this
orange juice sample come from the following farm”. Timing
was manipulated by presenting the grove name either before or
after tasting (Lee, Frederick, & Ariely, 2006; Siegrist & Cousin,
2009). A control condition where participants did not see any
label was also used. Random assignment placed participants to
one of these five conditions. Note that the same orange juice
was presented in all conditions (unbeknownst to participants).
Procedure
Participants were informed that they would taste an orange
juice sample and then answer some questions about the sample
as well as some questions about themselves. Each participant
received an unlabeled Styrofoam cup filled with 30 mL of a
private label orange juice. Using Media Lab software, partici-
pants were first asked to report their current thirst level, on a
7-point scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very thirsty; Winkielman,
Berridge, & Wilbarger, 2005). Participants were asked to report
their thirst level because the level of motivation might affect the
desire to consume orange juice, thereby altering evaluations.
Participants in the before condition saw the grove name,
rated their familiarity with the grove name and then tasted the
sample. Familiarity was measured on a 7-point scale (1 = Not at
all, 7 = very familiar). Participants in the after condition first
tasted the sample, then saw the grove name and rated their fa-
miliarity with the grove name.
After tasting, participants evaluated the sample across four
measures. Overall liking was measured by “Overall, how much
do you like this orange juice sample?” (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very
much; Siegrist & Cousin, 2009). Willingness-to-buy was meas-
ured with the question “How likely is it that you would buy this
orange juice?” (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very likely; Wszelaki et al.,
2005). Willingness-to-pay was measured with participants in-
dicating an amount in Canadian dollars; “How much would you
be willing to pay for a 1.89 L carton of this orange juice?”
(Siegrist & Cousin, 2009). Ability to quench thirst was meas-
ured with “How much did this orange juice quench your thirst?”
(1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much; Winkielman et al., 2005).
After participants tasted and evaluated the orange juice they
answered some personal and variety seeking questions. The
variety seeking questions were “I like to try different things”, “I
like a great deal of variety”, and “I like new and different

A. MANTONAKIS ET AL.
styles” (1 = Agree, 5 = Disagree; Bruner, 2009). Some of these
questions were asked to acquire basic demographic information
about the participants whereas others were asked because they
might be potential covariates.
Results
Gender, smoking habits, variety seeking, and familiarity
were all used as covariates in a MANOVA. These variables had
no effect on the data and will not be discussed further. Thirst
was also used as a covariate; it did not have a significant effect
on any other dependent variable except ability to quench. The
perceived ability to quench thirst was correlated with thirst
level (r = .475, p < .0001); a univariate ANOVA with readabil-
ity and timing as independent variables showed that the differ-
ence across the five conditions for the quench measure was
more significant when thirst was used as a covariate (F(4,134)
= 7.296, p < .0001).
Easy-to-Read Group
Data were analyzed using a MANOVA with timing and read-
ability as independent variables, and overall liking, willingness-
to-buy, willingness-to-pay, and ability to quench thirst as de-
pendent variables. Participants in the easy-to-read before and
after conditions gave similar ratings for all the measures when
compared to participants in the no-label condition.
Difficult- to-Read Grou p
A MANOVA demonstrated that for overall liking, there was
a main effect of readability (F(1,134) = 3.62, p < .06). Overall
liking of the difficult-to-read before group (M = 3.77) was sig-
nificantly lower than the no label group (M = 5.00, t(57) =
−3.22, p < .01). For willingness-to-buy, the main effect of
readability was marginally significant (F(1,134) = 2.89, p
< .10), and the interaction between readability and timing was
significant (F(1,134) = 4.66, p < .04). The willingness-to-buy
ratings of the difficult-to-read before group (M = 3.00) were
significantly lower than the no label group (M = 4.33, t(57) =
−2.93, p < .01).
For willingness-to-pay, the dollar amounts reported by par-
ticipants were log-transformed for analysis. The main effect of
timing was significant (F(1,134) = 4.60, p < .04). The diffi-
cult-to-read before group (M = $2.30, logM = .32) gave signifi-
cantly lower ratings than the no label group (M = $2.73, logM
= .42, t(57) = −2.42, p < .02). Finally, the difficult-to-read label
was also associated with a lowered perceived ability to quench
thirst. The difference across the five conditions for the quench
measure was marginally significant (F(4,134) = 2.01, p < .10).
The quench score of the difficult-to-read before condition (M =
3.58) was significantly lower than the no label condition (M =
4.67, t(57) = −2.89, p < .01).
Discussion
The results of this experiment provide the first evidence that
the metacognitive cue of fluency can alter sensory experiences.
When evaluating orange juice, a disfluent name is associated
with decreased taste ratings, and diminished willingness-to-buy,
willingness-to-pay and perceived ability of the drink to quench
thirst. By use of a control condition these results demonstrate
that fluency does not produce an advantage rather disfluency
creates a disadvantage, at least for a utilitarian product like
orange juice. These results also demonstrate that the metacog-
nitive cue of fluency cannot alter product evaluations once the
sample has been consumed. Fluency of the label had no effect
on ratings after the actual taste experience. This may be be-
cause sensory evaluations are not subject to post hoc re-
evaluations (cf. Lee et al., 2006).
A limitation of Experiment 1 is that it examined only one
type of product. In addition, it did not address other potential
moderators, such as product knowledge. Do metacognitive
fluency cues have the same effect on hedonic product evalua-
tions? Is this relationship moderated by product knowledge?
Prior knowledge about the product being tasted may also
play a role in how the fluency cue is interpreted. For example,
wine experts are known to focus more on a wine’s odor than
non-experts (Lawless, 1984), and have more enhanced vocabu-
lary and cognitive schemas, enhancing their ability to discrimi-
nate amongst different wine qualities (Lawless, 1984; Hughson
& Boakes, 2001; Ballester, Patris, Symoneaux, & Valentin,
2008). Further, the amount of prior knowledge is an indicator of
prior product exposure (Hughson & Boakes, 2001), which
might suggest that high knowledge consumers have more ex-
perience with the product and more developed expectations
regarding the level of fluency typically paired with the prod-
ucts’ labels. As such, more sophisticated expectations regarding
the product being consumed might have a greater influence on
the development of a consumer’s evaluation of a product when
it’s being consumed (Whittlesea & Williams, 1998; 2001; Sch-
warz, 2004). Taken together, it was predicted that people who
are more knowledgeable about a product will be more moti-
vated to evaluate the product accurately (Cardello et al., 1982;
Hughson & Boakes, 2001; Lawless, 1984). This means more
knowledgeable consumers might actually be more influenced
by fluency cues in some instances.
Linguistic Name Pairs Pilot Study
Experimental Design and Procedure
Thirty-two participants were recruited from Brock University.
There were three conditions; one condition for winery names,
one for grape varietal names, and one for brand names. The
three conditions were within subjects, presented to each par-
ticipant in random order. Each condition included 10 pairs of
names. Name pairs consisted of two names that differed in
phonological fluency; for an English speaker one name was
harder to pronounce than the other name (i.e., Spatzendreck vs.
Storybook). Name pairs matched closely on the number of syl-
lables and letters. Using Qualtrics software, a total of 30 name
pairs, consisting of 60 individual names were presented in ran-
dom order, for each condition, for each participant. For each
name presented, participants answered five questions in fixed
order. Each of the five questions were answered on a 7-point
scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much), except for the value
measure that had anchors (1 = Under $10, 7 = More than $35).
The five questions pertained to perceived fluency, similarity to
English, familiarity, value, and prototypically.
Results
Paired samples t-tests were performed for each of the five
dependent variables (perceived fluency, similarity to English,
familiarity, value, and prototypicality), for each name pair, in
320

A. MANTONAKIS ET AL.
each condition (winery, grape varietal, and brand). The ideal
inclusion criteria for the name pairs were that the two names
differed significantly on the fluency and similarity to English
measures, but did not differ significantly for the perceived fa-
miliarity, value, and prototypically measures.
For the winery condition, nine potential name pairs were
examined.1 Paired t-tests resulted in one pair meeting ideal
inclusion criteria. The winery pair Tselepou vs. Titakis was sig-
nificantly different on the fluency measure (t(31) = −7.02, p
< .0001), and the similarity to English measure (t(31) = −4.25,
p < .0001), but was not significantly different on the perceived
familiarity (t(31) = 0.16, p < .89), value (t(31) = 1.03, p < .31),
or prototypically (t(31) = −0.77, p < .45) measures.
For the grape varietal condition, eight potential name pairs
were examined. Paired t-tests resulted in two pairs meeting
ideal inclusion criteria. The grape varietal pair Alvarelhão vs.
Alexandrouli was significantly different on the fluency measure
(t(31) = −3.85, p < .0001), and the similarity to English meas-
ure (t(31) = −3.73, p < .001), but was not significantly different
on the perceived familiarity (t(31) = −0.90, p < .37), value (t(31)
= −1.90, p < .07), or prototypically (t(31) = −1.37, p < .18)
measures. As well, the grape varietal pair Csillam vs. Crato was
significantly different on the fluency measure (t(31) = −8.84, p
< .0001), and the similarity to English measure (t(31) = −6.17,
p < .0001), but was not significantly different on the perceived
familiarity (t(31) = −0.70, p < .49), value (t(31) = 0.11, p < .91),
or prototypically (t(31) = −1.41, p < .17) measures.
In summary, this pilot study identified one name pair in the
winery condition (Tselepou vs. Titakis), and two name pairs in
the grape varietal condition (Alvarelhão vs. Alexandrouli and
Csillam vs. Crato). The focus of the next experiments was on
only winery names and grape varietal names2, as such, the win-
ery pair Tselepou vs. Titakis was used in Experiment 2 and the
grape varietal pair Alvarelhão vs. Alexandrouli was used in
Experiment 3.
Experiment 2: Linguistic Fluency Derived from
Extrinsic Information on Hedonic Product
Evaluations
The purpose of Experiment 2 was to examine the effect of an
extrinsic fluency cue (winery name) on the evaluation of a he-
donic product (wine). The experiment varied whether the name
of the winery associated with a particular wine was easy- versus
difficult-to-pronounce and examined participants’ evaluations
of the wine, including how much they would be willing to pay
for the wine. The name was presented before the actual tasting.
It was predicted based on the concept of naïve theories
(Schwarz, 2004), that the level of prior product knowledge will
affect participants’ fluency expectations resulting in different
data patterns for low and high knowledge consumers. Specifi-
cally, it was predicted that disfluent names might be perceived
to be more rare or unique, especially for more knowledgeable
consumers, who may be more motivated, in creating the per-
ception of higher value.
Experimental Design
One-hundred-thirty-seven participants (58 women, 79 men)
between the ages of 19 - 62 (M = 24 SD = 7.33) who had not
already participated in Experiment 1 or the two previously de-
scribed pilot studies were recruited from Brock University and
the Niagara community. Participants were randomly assigned to
either the easy-to-pronounce, difficult-to-pronounce, or the
no-label (control) condition. The procedure matched that of
Experiment 1, with the exception that the timing factor used in
Experiment 1 was dropped because the previous experiment
showed that fluency only had an effect when experienced be-
fore tasting. Participants in the easy-to-pronounce condition
read that the wine they are about to taste was from “Titakis
Winery”, wherein the cue was presented prior to tasting. Par-
ticipants in the difficult-to-pronounce conditions read that the
wine was from “Tselepou Winery”, and followed the same
sequence variation as the easy-to-pronounce condition. The no-
label group was not presented with either winery name.
Procedure
The procedure and dependent measures (overall liking, will-
ingness-to-buy, and willingness-to-pay) were similar to Ex-
periment 1, except participants tasted a 90 ml sample of Char-
donnay instead of orange juice, and were provided with a win-
ery name using a 12 pt Times New Roman font, instead of an
orange juice grove name, and only before the tasting. Partici-
pants were informed of the winery name through text presented
on a computer using Media Lab software, “This wine sample
has been supplied by Titakis (Tselepou) Winery”. The no-label
condition was not given any winery information. Note that the
same wine was presented in all 3 conditions (unbeknownst to
participants). Participants responded to the dependent measures
of familiarity, overall liking, willingness-to-buy, and willing-
ness-to-pay. They also indicated their general liking of white
wine as well as demographic and variety seeking behaviors
(Bruner, 2009). Participants then completed a wine knowledge
questionnaire (Hughson & Boakes, 2001).
Results
The wine knowledge questionnaire was used to categorize
participants as either high or low wine knowledge consumers
(Hughson & Boakes, 2001). Based on this, 92 participants were
placed in the high wine knowledge group and 45 participants
were placed in the low wine knowledge group. Gender, smok-
ing, and liking of white wine displayed no effects and will not
be discussed further.
High Knowledge Participants
Data were analyzed using t-tests with ease-of-pronouncing as
the independent variable, and overall liking, willingness-to-buy,
and willingness-to-pay, as dependent variables. Planned inde-
pendent samples t-tests comparing means for the difficult-to-
pronounce group versus the no-label group for overall liking
showed that participants in the difficult-to-pronounce group (M
= 4.83) indicated they liked the wine more than the no-label
group (M = 4.13, (t(58) = −1.72, p < .05, 1-tailed). For willing-
ness-to-buy, participants in the difficult-to-pronounce group (M
= 4.43) provided higher ratings than the no-label group (M =
3.70, t(58) = −1.78, p < .04, 1-tailed). For willingness to pay,
1Preliminary screening of the raw data showed that most participants, when
answering the questionnaire, had missed a question or a few questions.
N
ame pairs with data determined to be missing systematically by the miss-
ing variance analyses using SPSS 19 software were removed. The remaining
pairs were compensated with estimated means.
2The brand name condition of the pilot study was not relevant to Experi-
ments 2 and 3 and therefore will not be discussed further.

A. MANTONAKIS ET AL.
participants in the difficult-to-pronounce group (M = $16.13)
reported a higher willingness-to-pay than the no-label group (M
= $11.73, t(58) = −2.90, p < .002, 1-tailed).
Planned independent samples t-tests comparing means for
the easy-to-pronounce group versus the no-label group for the
dependent measures showed no significant differences.
Low Knowledge Participants
For the low knowledge participants, planned independent
samples t-tests comparing means for the difficult-to-pronounce
group versus the no-label group, and the easy-to-pronounce
group versus the no-label group, on each of the dependent vari-
ables (overall liking, willingness-to-buy, and willingness-to-
pay) revealed no significant effects.
Discussion
This experiment showed that a disfluent extrinsic product cue
(i.e., a winery name) enhanced consumers’ evaluations when
tasting a hedonic product such as wine, which was the case only
for more knowledgeable participants. More importantly, higher
knowledge participants reported a higher willingness-to-buy
and willingness-to-pay for the wine.
Experiment 3 seeks to further establish the boundaries of this
knowledge-based fluency effect by examining the effect of ease
of processing of ingredient information (derived from a grape
varietal name, for instance) on taste-related evaluations. The
dependent variables of perceived taste uniqueness and rarity
were added to test the supposed underlying perceptions that
may be involved in this effect proposed by the context specific
hypothesis that explains past findings that have shown a dis-
fluent or difficult-to-read name results in higher novelty ratings
(Pocheptsova et al., 2010).
The effect of fluency cues on a consumer’s evaluation of a
product may also be determined by the source of the fluency. Is
it an easy-to-pronounce brand name (extrinsic quality) or an
easy-to-pronounce ingredient name (intrinsic quality)? In other
words, the type of information the consumer is evaluating, whe-
ther extrinsic or intrinsic to the product, may play a role in the
consumer’s judgment. That is because consumers evaluate in-
trinsic information differently because it’s directly related to
ingestion. For instance, food additive names that are difficult-
to-pronounce are perceived to be more dangerous and hazard-
ous for consumption (Song & Schwarz, 2009). Experiment 3
investigates this relationship.
Experiment 3: Linguistic Fluency Derived from
Intrinsic Information on Hedonic Product
Evaluations
Experimental Design
One-hundred-twenty-eight participants (86 women, 42 men),
between the ages of 19 - 43 (M = 22, SD = 4.41) who had not
already participated in Experiments 1 and 2 or the two previ-
ously described pilot studies were recruited from Brock Uni-
versity and the Niagara community. Participants were randomly
assigned to either the easy-to-pronounce, difficult-to-pronounce,
or control condition. For the three levels of linguistic fluency,
the researcher presented the participants with either the easy-to-
pronounce red grape varietal name Alexandrouli, the difficult-
to-pronounce red grape varietal name Alvarelhão, or no grape
varietal information, before they sampled a glass of wine. A
wine knowledge questionnaire (Hughson & Boakes, 2001) was
administered to participants after they had tasted the wine to
determine their pre-experimental wine knowledge, allowing for
participants to be classified as either high or low wine knowl-
edge consumers.
Procedure
The procedure and dependent measures (overall liking, will-
ingness-to-buy, and willingness-to-pay) were the same as Ex-
periment 2, with the exception that participants were presented
with a glass of 70 ml of Pinot Noir wine and were provided
with only grape varietal information; “you are about to sample
a glass of wine made with the grape varietal Alexandrouli (Al-
varelhão). Please keep the name Alexandrouli (Alvarelhão) in
your mind by repeating it in your head” (Song & Schwarz,
2009; Pocheptsova et al., 2010). Following these instructions,
participants answered questions regarding the dependent meas-
ures of overall liking, willingness-to-buy, and willingness-to-
pay with the addition to taste uniqueness and perceived rarity
(all on 7-point scales).
Results
The wine knowledge questionnaire was used to categorize
participants as either high or low wine knowledge consumers
(Hughson & Boakes, 2001). Based on this, 64 participants were
placed in the high wine knowledge group and 64 participants
were placed in the low wine knowledge group. Gender, smok-
ing, liking of red wine, uniqueness, and rarity displayed no
effects and will not be discussed further.
High Knowledge Participants
Planned independent samples t-tests compared means for the
easy-to-pronounce group versus the no-label group, and the
difficult-to-pronounce group versus the no-label group, on each
of the dependent variables (overall liking, willingness-to-buy,
and willingness-to-pay). None of these six comparisons re-
vealed significant effects for the high knowledge participants.
Low Knowledge Participants
Planned independent samples t-tests were carried out, com-
paring means for the easy-to-pronounce group versus the no-label
group. Although there were no differences in means for overall
liking for participants in the easy-to-pronounce group (M = 4.62)
versus the no-label group (M = 4.21), t(43) = .945, p < .18,
1-tailed), for willingness-to-buy, participants in the easy-to-pro-
nounce group (M = 4.05) provided significantly higher ratings
than the no-label group (M = 3.13, t(43) = 1.95, p < .02, 1-tailed).
For willingness to pay, participants in the easy-to-pronounce
group (M = $21.29) reported a higher willingness-to-pay than
the no-label group (M = $15.56, t(43) = 3.02, p < .002, 1-tailed).
Planned independent samples t-tests comparing means for
the difficult-to-pronounce group versus the no-label group for
the dependent measures showed no significant differences for
the low knowledge participants.
Discussion
Unlike what was found in Experiment 2 with an extrinsic cue,
322

A. MANTONAKIS ET AL.
Experiment 3 showed that disfluent cues did not enhance per-
ceived sensory experiences for hedonic products when the cues
were derived from intrinsic product information. This could be
because intrinsic information is directly related to ingestion and
a disfluent cue can indicate a health hazard (Song & Schwarz,
2009).
Although the ratings differed across conditions with a gen-
eral preference for the easy-to-pronounce condition, this finding
occurred for only consumers with lower knowledge. Perhaps
this is the case because low knowledge consumers, given their
relative lack of experience with the product, may be even wea-
rier of unfamiliar names, especially when it comes to ingredi-
ents (cf. Song & Schwarz, 2009). This finding contributes to
the literature showing that metacognitive cues associated with
intrinsic product information are not interpreted by consumers
in the same way as cues relating to extrinsic product informa-
tion.
General Discussion
The results of three experiments showed that the metacogni-
tive cue of fluency can affect consumers’ taste related evalua-
tions, and this is moderated by the type of product (whether
utilitarian or hedonic), the type of fluency cue (whether it’s
about an extrinsic or intrinsic product characteristic), and con-
sumer knowledge. These findings were demonstrated by com-
paring evaluations associated with different fluency cues in
comparison to evaluations made in a control condition. The use
of a true control condition was important because it allowed for
the identification of data patterns that would not have been
found if only evaluating the differences between the fluent
versus disfluent conditions.
Theoretical Contributions
These studies make several key contributions to the fluency,
sensory evaluation, and consumer psychology literatures. First,
the metacognitive cue of fluency was shown to extend to actual
taste-related evaluations as opposed to simple ratings (cf. Song
& Schwarz, 2009; Pocheptsova et al., 2010). This finding con-
firms that metacognitive fluency cues can affect taste evalua-
tions, when the cues are presented before, not after, the tasting
experience (cf. Lee et al, 2006). This was found for utilitarian
and hedonic products, showing that a disfluent cue can actually
increase ratings for hedonic products (Experiment 2), despite
the overwhelming literature stating that only fluent cues en-
hance product evaluations (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). Sec-
ond, taste-related evaluations were examined for both fluent
and disfluent label conditions in comparison to evaluations for
control conditions. By using a true control group, the results
showed that at least for utilitarian products (Experiment 1),
fluent cues do not necessarily enhance evaluations, rather, it is
disfluent cues that lower taste evaluations.
On the other hand, for hedonic products (Experiment 2), it’s
disfluent cues that enhance evaluations, especially for high
knowledge participants. These findings extend past research
showing that experts are more sophisticated while evaluating
wine because of enhanced vocabulary and motivations (Law-
less, 1984; Hughson & Boakes, 2001; Ballester et al., 2008).
Our research shows instead that it may be because higher
knowledge consumers are more motivated and persistent; they
may simply be more susceptible to using extrinsic cues in in-
forming their judgment.
Fourth, in examining taste perception, these experiments
showed that fluency cues have a different effect on judgment
dependent on the product type (Pocheptsova et al., 2010; Le-
clerc et al., 1994), as shown in Experiment 1 using a utilitarian
product (disfluent cues are associated with lower ratings) and in
Experiment 2 with a hedonic product (disfluent cues are associ-
ated with higher ratings).
Last, these experiments confirm that fluency cues have a dif-
ferent effect on evaluations depending on whether the informa-
tion is derived from an extrinsic or intrinsic cue. Disfluent cues
enhance ratings for hedonic products when derived from ex-
trinsic information (cf. Leclerc et al., 1994), whereas fluent
cues seem to enhance ratings for a hedonic product when de-
rived from intrinsic information (cf. Song & Schwarz, 2009),
this finding was further moderated by prior knowledge. Spe-
cifically, lower knowledge participants seemed especially sus-
ceptible to fluent intrinsic cues, reporting a higher willingness-
to-buy and a higher willingness-to-pay when the ingredient was
easier to pronounce. This finding was not the case for higher
knowledge consumers.
Managerial Implicati o n s
These studies are important for consideration by marketers
when designing product labels. It is important for marketers to
consider the product type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) before decid-
ing whether it may be beneficial to use fluency cues as part of
the marketing mix, especially when it comes to product pack-
aging. These studies suggest that utilitarian products will be at a
disadvantage when presented with disfluent cues whereas he-
donic products will be at an advantage when presented with
disfluent cues regarding extrinsic product information. It is also
important to consider fluency cues in light of other elements of
the marketing mix, including price and promotional activities.
Limitations and Future Research
The first major limitation is that these experiments were
conducted in a laboratory setting. This restricted environment is
inherently different than a purchasing or consumption scenario
and fluency cues would not be considered relevant to product
judgments if they were perceived as fabricated (Alter & Op-
penheimer, 2009). Future research should investigate the effects
of context and varying experiment locations (e.g., ordering in a
restaurant vs. picking up a package from a display shelf in a
store), and levels of product prototypicality, on purchase deci-
sions regarding products with varying fluency cues.
Fluency manipulations were reliant on participants’ English
language competence because participants needed to read and
understand the instructions. Therefore, a major limitation for
these studies is that participants did not indicate whether Eng-
lish was their first or second language or if they had a known
language disorder. Future studies should screen for known lan-
guage disorders, reading abilities, or English as a second or
third language.
Overall, this research is important for understanding sensory
perceptions and designing product labels because understanding
extrinsic cues used by consumers for evaluating a product’s
intrinsic characteristics and overall worth has marketing and
sensory science implications. Future research should replicate
these studies taking the necessary steps to address the identified

A. MANTONAKIS ET AL.
324
limitations.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Andrew Reynolds from Brock Uni-
versity’s Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute for
supplying the wine used in Experiments 2 and 3. We are thank-
ful for the help provided by the Research Assistants at the Con-
sumer Perception and Cognition Laboratory (Matthew Philp &
Lindsey Carey). We would also like to acknowledge the Natu-
ral Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Can-
ada for helping to fund this research.
REFERENCES
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008a). Easy on the mind, easy on
the wallet: The role of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation
judgments. Psychon omic Bulletin and Revi ew, 15, 985-990.
doi:10.3758/PBR.15.5.985
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008b). Effects of fluency on psy-
chological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a
large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science,
19, 161-167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of flu-
ency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 13, 219-235. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564
Ballester, J., Patris, B., Symoneaux, R., & Valentin, D. (2008). Con-
ceptual vs. perceptual wine spaces: Does expertise matter. Food
Quality and Preference, 19, 267-276.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.08.001
Bruner, G. (2009). Marketing scales handbook. V5: A compilation of
multi-item measures for consumer behavior and advertising research.
Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Cardello, A. V., Maller, O., Kapsalis, J. G., Segars, R. A., Sawyer, F.
M., Murphy, C., & Moskowitz, H. R. (1982). Perception of texture
by trained and consumer panelists. Journal of Food Science, 47, 1186-
1197. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1982.tb07646.x
Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2010). The effects of advertising copy on
sensory thoughts and perceived taste. Journal of Consumer Research,
36, 748-756. doi:10.1086/605327
Hughson, A., & Boakes, R. (2001). Perceptual and cognitive aspects of
wine expertise. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 103-108.
doi:10.1080/00049530108255130
Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: En-
gaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Jour-
nal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 332-351.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.003
Lawless, H. (1984). Flavour discrimination of white wine by “expert”
and non-expert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 49, 120-
123. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1984.tb13686.x
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dube, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its
effects on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing
Research, 31, 263-270. doi:10.2307/3152198
Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it: The
influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences
for beer. Psychological Science, 17, 1054-1058.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01829.x
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the
framing of attribute information before and after consuming the
product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378.
doi:10.1086/209174
Litt, A., & Shiv, B. (2012). Manipulating basic taster perception to ex-
plore how product information affects experience. Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology, 22, 55-66. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.007
McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock
conjointly: Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11,
424-428. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00282
Pocheptsova, A., Labroo, A., & Dhar, R. (2010). Making products feel
special: When metacognitive difficulty enhances evaluation. Journal
of Marketing Research, 47, 1059-1069. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1059
Siegrist, M., & Cousin, M. (2009). Expectations influence sensory ex-
perience in a wine tasting. Appetite, 52, 762-765.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.02.002
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment
and decision making. Journal of Con su mer Psychology, 14, 332-348.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do:
Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psycho-
logical Science, 19, 986-988. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must
be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Sci-
ence, 20, 135-138. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel
familiar, but friends don’t? The unexpected basis of feelings of fa-
miliarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141-166.
doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00040-1
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy-
attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-
tion, 27, 3-13. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.3
Winkielman, P., Berridge, K., & Wilbararger, J. (2005). Unconscious
affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence
consumption behavior and judgments of value. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Bulletin, 31, 121-135.
doi:10.1177/0146167204271309
Wszelaki, D., Walker, S., Liggett, R., Miller, S., & Kleinhenz, M.
(2005). Consumer liking and descriptive analysis of six varieties of
organically grown edamame-type soybean. Food Quality and Pref-
erence, 16, 651-658. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.02.001