Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Four participants from the original sample of 51 were not included due to technical issues with completing the survey (2) or they indicated they had participated in one of the other research studies (2). Not including them did not change the pattern of results.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blattberg, R. C., Briesch, R. & Neslin, S. A. (1995). How promotions work. Marketing Science, 14(3), Part 2, G122-G132.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631–636.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gupta, S., & Cooper, L. G. (1992). Discounting of discounts and promotions thresholds. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(December), 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 86–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hawkins, S. A., & Hoch, S. J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 212–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Larsen, C. (Coordinator). (2008). 50 years of Helvetica [Exhibit]. New York: Museum of Modern Art.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schwarz, N. (2004). Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  54. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dhruv Grewal.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Study 2 advertisement (disfluent choices)

figurea

Appendix 2

Study 4 advertisement (disfluent font)

figureb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Motyka, S., Suri, R., Grewal, D. et al. Disfluent vs. fluent price offers: paradoxical role of processing disfluency. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 44, 627–638 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0459-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Price perception
  • Fluency
  • Disfluency
  • Decision making