4.5 Article

Revisiting (dis)fluency: Metacognitive difficulty as a novelty cue that evokes feeling-of-interest

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING
卷 39, 期 8, 页码 1451-1466

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mar.21664

关键词

disfluency; fluency; innovation; interest; metacognition; novelty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contrary to conventional belief and existing literature, recent research suggests that difficult-to-read fonts in marketing communications may lead to positive consumer evaluation of unique, complex, or security-related products. The positive effects of perceptual disfluency are explained by the perceived novelty and subsequent interest and intention to try the product.
Contrary to conventional belief and the existing literature, recent research has shown that difficult-to-read fonts on marketing communications may evoke perceptual disfluency and enhance consumer evaluation toward unique, complex, or security-related products. However, no research has examined the psychological mechanism that underlies the positive effects of perceptual disfluency. The current research presents five experiments to address this study gap. Specifically, Studies 1 and 2 provide empirical evidence that perceptual disfluency may lead to perceived novelty and in turn evoke the feeling-of-interest, perceived innovativeness, and intention to try a product. Studies 3 and 4 replicate these findings and show that such an indirect effect of perceptual disfluency is mitigated by the presence of salient novelty cues and prior product knowledge, providing further support for the hypothesized disfluency-novelty-interest relationship. Study 5 extended these findings by showing that digital ad banners with disfluent text may enhance click-throughs in a natural viewing task of a news website. The current findings empirically demonstrate a mechanism that not only underlies the positive effects of perceptual disfluency but also aligns with the fluency-familiarity-liking relationship found in the existing literature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据