PSYCH> Vol.4 No.3A, March 2013

The Effects of the Metacognitive Cue of Fluency on Evaluations about Taste Perception

DownloadDownload as PDF (Size:130KB)  HTML    PP. 318-324  

ABSTRACT

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 metacognitive 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 (Experiment 3). These findings are important for designing product labels.

Cite this paper

Mantonakis, A. , Galiffi, B. , Aysan, U. & Beckett, R. (2013). The Effects of the Metacognitive Cue of Fluency on Evaluations about Taste Perception. Psychology, 4, 318-324. doi: 10.4236/psych.2013.43A046.

References

[1] 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. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 985-990. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.5.985
[2] Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008b). Effects of fluency on psychological 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
[3] Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219-235. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564
[4] Ballester, J., Patris, B., Symoneaux, R., & Valentin, D. (2008). Conceptual vs. perceptual wine spaces: Does expertise matter. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 267-276. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.08.001
[5] Bruner, G. (2009). Marketing scales handbook. V5: A compilation of multi-item measures for consumer behavior and advertising research. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
[6] 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
[7] 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
[8] Hughson, A., & Boakes, R. (2001). Perceptual and cognitive aspects of wine expertise. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 103-108. doi:10.1080/00049530108255130
[9] Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 332-351. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.003
[10] 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
[11] 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
[12] 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
[13] 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
[14] Litt, A., & Shiv, B. (2012). Manipulating basic taster perception to explore how product information affects experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 55-66. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.007
[15] 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
[16] 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
[17] Siegrist, M., & Cousin, M. (2009). Expectations influence sensory experience in a wine tasting. Appetite, 52, 762-765. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.02.002
[18] Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332-348. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
[19] Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986-988. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x
[20] Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20, 135-138. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x
[21] Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? The unexpected basis of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141-166. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00040-1
[22] 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 Cognition, 27, 3-13. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.3
[23] 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 Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 121-135. doi:10.1177/0146167204271309
[24] 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 Preference, 16, 651-658. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.02.001

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.