The Effects of the Metacognitive Cue of Fluency on Evaluations about Taste Perception
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".