↓ Skip to main content

The limited use of the fluency heuristic: Converging evidence across different procedures

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
The limited use of the fluency heuristic: Converging evidence across different procedures
Published in
Memory & Cognition, July 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0622-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rüdiger F. Pohl, Edgar Erdfelder, Martha Michalkiewicz, Marta Castela, Benjamin E. Hilbig

Abstract

In paired comparisons based on which of two objects has the larger criterion value, decision makers could use the subjectively experienced difference in retrieval fluency of the objects as a cue. According to the fluency heuristic (FH) theory, decision makers use fluency-as indexed by recognition speed-as the only cue for pairs of recognized objects, and infer that the object retrieved more speedily has the larger criterion value (ignoring all other cues and information). Model-based analyses, however, have previously revealed that only a small portion of such inferences are indeed based on fluency alone. In the majority of cases, other information enters the decision process. However, due to the specific experimental procedures, the estimates of FH use are potentially biased: Some procedures may have led to an overestimated and others to an underestimated, or even to actually reduced, FH use. In the present article, we discuss and test the impacts of such procedural variations by reanalyzing 21 data sets. The results show noteworthy consistency across the procedural variations revealing low FH use. We discuss potential explanations and implications of this finding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 50%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 10%
Linguistics 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#1,450
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,259
of 370,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.