Contents
Novemsky et al. (2007) Preference Fluency in Choice ................................................. 2
Scott et al. (2020) Consumers Prefer “Natural” More for Preventatives Than for Curatives
............................................................................................................................... 6
Etkin et al.(2016) The hidden cost of personal quantification ....................................... 8
Puntoni et al.(2011) Gender identity Salience and Perceived vulnerability to Breast
Cancer .................................................................................................................. 14
Stuppy et al. (2020) I Am, Therefore I Buy: Low Self-Esteem and the Pursuit of Self-
Verifying Consumption ........................................................................................... 19
Tezer et al. (2019) The Greenconsumption Effect: How Using Green Products Improves
Consumption Experience ....................................................................................... 23
, Novemsky et al. (2007) Preference Fluency in Choice
1. What is this paper’s main idea:
-> about how difficulty in choice leads to choice deferral and compromise effect.
-> looks into metacognitive difficulty.
Fluency = how easy it feels for your mind to process an option or make a choice.
This paper measures metacognitive difficulty through deferral or choosing a compromise
options, based on different levels of fluency.
2. What are the key variables:
IVs:
• Preference Fluency (Experiment 1: Font Readability)
• Number of reasons for a choice (Experiments 2, 3, 4)
• Attribution (Moderator in Experiment 4)
DVs:
• Deferrals
• Compromise Options
Mediators:
• Fluency Perception
• Subjective difficulty ratings (Experiments 2, 3, 4):
• Participants with more reasons rated the task as harder, leading to higher
deferral/compromise.
3. Hypothesis:
The difficulty of forming a preference (low fluency) leads to an increase in choice deferral
and compromise selection, unless participants attribute difficulty to an unrelated cause.
4. Method:
-> 4 experiments that manipulate fluency through various extraneous variables (font
readability, reasons for making a choice).
-> purpose for manipulation is to influence subjective difficulty preference, while holding
variables traditionally shown to influence preference construction constant.
, 5. Results:
-> decrease in preference fluency leads to increase of choice deferral
-> moderation: when low fluency is attributed to a different cause, the main effect was
mitigated.
Main effect = people prefer options that are easier to choose between (high choice fluency),
even when the options themselves are identical in value.
Experiment 1
Design: 2 x 2 between subjects
IVs:
• Difficulty to read (fluency), 2 levels:
o Standard
o Difficult
• Attribution to font (“This information might be hard to read”), 2 levels:
o Present
o Not present
DVs:
• % of deferral choice
Purpose = test how difficulty in reading fonts influences decision to defer.
Findings:
• Low font fluency (hard to read) leads to high choice deferral
• Effect disappears when attribution of difficulty is present
• When aware, people correct for it
Novemsky et al. (2007) Preference Fluency in Choice ................................................. 2
Scott et al. (2020) Consumers Prefer “Natural” More for Preventatives Than for Curatives
............................................................................................................................... 6
Etkin et al.(2016) The hidden cost of personal quantification ....................................... 8
Puntoni et al.(2011) Gender identity Salience and Perceived vulnerability to Breast
Cancer .................................................................................................................. 14
Stuppy et al. (2020) I Am, Therefore I Buy: Low Self-Esteem and the Pursuit of Self-
Verifying Consumption ........................................................................................... 19
Tezer et al. (2019) The Greenconsumption Effect: How Using Green Products Improves
Consumption Experience ....................................................................................... 23
, Novemsky et al. (2007) Preference Fluency in Choice
1. What is this paper’s main idea:
-> about how difficulty in choice leads to choice deferral and compromise effect.
-> looks into metacognitive difficulty.
Fluency = how easy it feels for your mind to process an option or make a choice.
This paper measures metacognitive difficulty through deferral or choosing a compromise
options, based on different levels of fluency.
2. What are the key variables:
IVs:
• Preference Fluency (Experiment 1: Font Readability)
• Number of reasons for a choice (Experiments 2, 3, 4)
• Attribution (Moderator in Experiment 4)
DVs:
• Deferrals
• Compromise Options
Mediators:
• Fluency Perception
• Subjective difficulty ratings (Experiments 2, 3, 4):
• Participants with more reasons rated the task as harder, leading to higher
deferral/compromise.
3. Hypothesis:
The difficulty of forming a preference (low fluency) leads to an increase in choice deferral
and compromise selection, unless participants attribute difficulty to an unrelated cause.
4. Method:
-> 4 experiments that manipulate fluency through various extraneous variables (font
readability, reasons for making a choice).
-> purpose for manipulation is to influence subjective difficulty preference, while holding
variables traditionally shown to influence preference construction constant.
, 5. Results:
-> decrease in preference fluency leads to increase of choice deferral
-> moderation: when low fluency is attributed to a different cause, the main effect was
mitigated.
Main effect = people prefer options that are easier to choose between (high choice fluency),
even when the options themselves are identical in value.
Experiment 1
Design: 2 x 2 between subjects
IVs:
• Difficulty to read (fluency), 2 levels:
o Standard
o Difficult
• Attribution to font (“This information might be hard to read”), 2 levels:
o Present
o Not present
DVs:
• % of deferral choice
Purpose = test how difficulty in reading fonts influences decision to defer.
Findings:
• Low font fluency (hard to read) leads to high choice deferral
• Effect disappears when attribution of difficulty is present
• When aware, people correct for it
