Processing Fluency and Decision-Making: The Role of Language Structure

• Authors: Mikołaj Deckert
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper models conventionalisation of language structure as constitutive of processing fluency. I postulate that the difference in conventionalisation of linguistic forms used for communication significantly influences our reasoning about linguistically-expressed problems. Two studies are reported that tested this hypothesis with the use of variably conventionalised - fluent and disfluent - formulations of problem-solving tasks. Th e findings indicate that even in tasks requiring analytic reasoning, the degree to which the linguistic forms employed to communicate are conventionalised is correlated with the subjects’ performance success rate. On a more general level, this paper seeks to empirically address the nature of links between linguistic form and meaning construction.

Keywords

EN

cognition; communication; conventionalisation; decision-making; dual-processing; fluency; meaning construction

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Psychology of Language and Communication
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 149-161

Dates

published

2015-10-01

online

2015-10-29

Contributors

author

Mikołaj Deckert

• Institute of English Studies, University of Łódź, Pomorska 171/173, 90-236 Łódź, Poland

References

• Alter, A.L. & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2006). Predicting short-term stock fl uctuations by using processing fl uency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 (24), 9369-9372.
• Alter, A.L., & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fl uency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219-235.
• Alter, A.L., Oppenheimer, D.M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R.N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive diffi culty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (4), 569-576.
• Alter, A.L. & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2008). Eff ects of fl uency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19 (2), 161-167.
• Alter, A.L. & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2009). Suppressing secrecy through metacognitive ease: Cognitive fluency encourages self-disclosure. Psychological Science, 20 (11), 1414-1420.
• Bornstein, R.F. & D’Agostino, P.R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure eff ect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 545-552.
• Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.
• Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and meaning. Synthese, 17 (1), 304-323.
• Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D.M., & Vaughan, E. (2011). Fortune favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Eff ects of disfl uency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118 (1), 111-115.
• Downing, P. (1977). On ‘basic levels’ and the categorization of objects in English discourse. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 3, 475-487.
• Duchon, D., Dunegan, K.J., & Barton, S.L. (1989). Framing the problem and making decisions: Th e facts are not enough. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36 (1), 25-27.
• Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49 (8), 709-724.
• Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M.J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology. Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 159-184).
• Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
• Erickson, T.D. & Matt son, M.E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20 (5), 540-551.
• Evans, J.S.B.T. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75 (4), 451-468.
• Evans, J.S.B.T. (1996). Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87 (2), 223-240.
• Evans, J.S.B.T. (2010). Th inking Twice: Two Minds in one Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Evans, J.S.B.T. & Over, D.E. (1996). Rationality and Reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.
• Evans, J.S.B.T. & Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (3), 223-241, 263-271.
• Frankish, K. & Evans, J.S.B.T. (2009). The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In J.S.B.T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond (pp. 1-29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (4), 25-42.
• Geeraerts, D. (1995). Cognitive linguistics. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 111-116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 3-21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greenberg, J.H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73-113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59 (4), 781-819.
• Jacoby, L.L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118 (2), 115-125.
• Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
• Kamas, E.N., Reder, L.M., & Ayers, M.S. (1996). Partial matching in the Moses Illusion: Response bias not sensitivity. Memory and Cognition, 24 (6), 687-699.
• Klein, G. (1999). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lakoff , G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff , G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Landsberg, M.E. (Ed.) (1995). Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: Th e Human Dimension. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, R.W. (2007). Cognitive Grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 421-462). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., & Gaeth, G.J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing eff ects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76 (2), 149-188.
• Levinson, S.C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence (pp. 221-260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McGlone, M.S. & Tofi ghbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11 (5), 424-428.
• Moray, N. (1967). Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. Acta Psychologica, 27, 84-92.
• Oppenheimer, D.M. & Frank, M.F. (2007). A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 106 (3), 1178-1194.
• Park, H. & Reder, L.M. (2003). Moses illusion. In R.F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive Illusions (pp. 275-292). New York: Psychology Press.
• Posner, R. (1986). Iconicity in syntax: Th e natural order of attributes. In P. Bouissac, M. Herzfeld, & R. Posner (Eds.), Iconicity: Essays on the Nature of Culture (pp. 305-337). Tübingen: Stauff enburg Verlag.
• Peirce, C.S. (1982). Th e Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. Volumes 1: Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Peirce, C.S. (1998). Th e Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Volume 2: Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Posner, M.I. & Snyder, C.R.R. (1975). Att ention and cognitive control. In R.L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: Th e Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Reber, R. & Schwarz, N. (1999). Eff ects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8 (2), 338-342.
• Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fl uency on aff ective judgments. Psychological Science, 9 (1), 45-48.
• Reder, L.M. & Kusbit, G.W. (1991). Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (4), 385-406.
• Saussure, F. de. (1916/1967). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
• Schmid, H.-J. (forthcoming). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association.
• Shah, A.K. & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2007) Easy does it: Th e role of fl uency in cue weighting. Judgment and Decision Making, 2 (6), 371-379
• Shiffrin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 127-190.
• Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119 (1), 3-22.
• Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2008a). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19 (10), 986-988.
• Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2008b). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26 (6), 791-799.
• Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20 (2), 135-138.
• Stanovich, K.E. (2011). Rationality and the Reflective Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453-458.
• Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59 (4), 251-278.
• Van Langendonck, W. (2007). Iconicity. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 394-418). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Whitt lesea, B.W.A. & Leboe, J.P. (2000). The heuristic basis of remembering and classification: fluency, generation, and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129 (1), 84-106.
• Yue, C.L., Caster, A.D., & Bjork, R.A. (2013). When disfluency is - and is not - a desirable difficulty: the influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory and Cognition, 41 (2), 229-241.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/plc-2015-0009