Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 627–638 | Cite as

Disfluent vs. fluent price offers: paradoxical role of processing disfluency

  • Scott Motyka
  • Rajneesh Suri
  • Dhruv Grewal
  • Chiranjeev Kohli
Original Empirical Research
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Conventional wisdom and prior research on processing fluency suggest that consumers prefer fluent information, such that it has positive effects on their purchase decisions. Challenging this conventional wisdom, and on the basis of recent research on processing disfluency, this study proposes that the increased effort required to process disfluent price information can lead to deeper information processing. If the advertised price offer represents a good value, it can enhance purchase decisions, even if customers prefer the disfluent display less. A series of studies in the field and lab demonstrate support for this positive impact of disfluent price information on purchase decisions.

Keywords

Price perception Fluency Disfluency Decision making 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). 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(2), 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biswas, A., Bhowmick, S., Guha, A., & Grewal, D. (2013). Consumer evaluations of sale prices: role of the subtraction principle. Journal of Marketing, 77, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blattberg, R. C., Briesch, R. & Neslin, S. A. (1995). How promotions work. Marketing Science, 14(3), Part 2, G122-G132.Google Scholar
  5. Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, R. F., Leone, D. R., & Galley, D. J. (1987). The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1070–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burkhard, D. (2010). Helvetica–World’s most popular font. Newly Swissed. http://www.newlyswissed.com. Accessed 27 Jun.
  8. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Corley, M., MacGregor, L. J., & Donaldson, D. I. (2007). It’s the way that you, er, say it: hesitations in speech affect language comprehension. Cognition, 105(3), 658–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2005). Size does matter: the effects of magnitude representation congruency on price perceptions and purchase likelihood. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulter, K. S., & Roggeveen, A. (2012). Deal or no deal? How number of buyers, purchase limit, and time-to-expiration impact purchase decisions on group buying websites. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(2), 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Della Bitta, A. J., Monroe, K. B., & McGinnis, J. M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(November), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). The effects of price, brand and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis, A. W., Holmes, S. J., & Wright, R. L. (2010). Age of acquisition and the recognition of brand names: on the importance of being early. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Estelami, H., Grewal, D., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2007). The negative effect of policy restrictions on consumers’ post-purchase reactions to price-matching guarantees. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2), 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glass, B. D., Maddox, W. T., & Markman, A. B. (2011). Regulatory fit effects on stimulus identification. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(3), 927–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(April), 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gupta, S., & Cooper, L. G. (1992). Discounting of discounts and promotions thresholds. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(December), 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawkins, S. A., & Hoch, S. J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins, E. T., Camacho, C. J., Idson, L. C., Spiegel, S., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). How making the same decision in a “proper way” creates value. Social Cognition, 26(5), 496–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Inman, J. J., McAlister, L., & Hoyer, W. D. (1990). Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut? Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kukar-Kinney, M., & Grewal, D. (2007). Comparison of consumer reactions to price-matching guarantees in internet and bricks-and-mortar retail environments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Labroo, A. A., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Between two brands: a goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Labroo, A. A., Dhar, R., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Of frog wines and frowning watches: semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larsen, C. (Coordinator). (2008). 50 years of Helvetica [Exhibit]. New York: Museum of Modern Art.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin, H. F., & Shen, F. (2012). Regulatory focus and attribute framing: evidence of compatibility effects in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin, B. A., Lang, B., Wong, S., & Martin, B. A. (2003). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: the moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) and argument quality (AQ) on persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin, B. A., Sherrard, M. J., & Wentzel, D. (2005). The role of sensation seeking and need for cognition on Web‐site evaluations: a resource‐matching perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 22(2), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Motyka, S., Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., Roggeveen, A. L., Avnet, T., Daryanto, A., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2014). Regulatory fit: a meta-analytic synthesis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 394–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reimann, M., Castaño, R., Zaichkowsky, J., & Bechara, A. (2012). Novel versus familiar brands: an analysis of neurophysiology, response latency, and choice. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwarz, N. (2004). Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seamon, J. G., Marsh, R. L., & Brody, N. (1984). Critical importance of exposure duration for affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(3), 465–469.Google Scholar
  43. Shen, H., Jiang, Y., & Adaval, R. (2010). Contrast and assimilation effects of processing fluency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 876–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Som, A., & Lee, Y. H. (2012). The joint effects of choice assortment and regulatory focus on choice behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(2), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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(10), 986–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spotts, H. (1994). Evidence of a relationship between need for cognition and chronological age: Implications for persuasion in consumer research. In C. T. Allen & J. D. Roedder (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 21, pp. 238–243). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  48. Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2001). The effects of need for cognition and trait anxiety on price acceptability. Psychology & Marketing, 18(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Suri, R., Kohli, C. S., & Monroe, K. B. (2007). The effects of perceived scarcity on the evaluation of prices. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suri, R., Monroe, K. B., & Koc, U. (2013). Math anxiety and its effects on consumers’ preference for price promotion formats. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsai, C. I., & McGill, A. L. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whittlesea, B. W. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235–1253.Google Scholar
  53. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.Google Scholar
  54. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Motyka
    • 1
  • Rajneesh Suri
    • 2
  • Dhruv Grewal
    • 3
  • Chiranjeev Kohli
    • 4
  1. 1.Keck Graduate InstituteClaremont CollegesClaremontUSA
  2. 2.Department of Marketing, LeBow College of BusinessDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of MarketingBabson CollegeBabson ParkUSA
  4. 4.Mihaylo College of Business and EconomicsCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations