The causes for the liking of objects are multifaceted. According to the processing fluency account, the ease with which an object is processed leads to a subjective feeling of fluency. This subjective feeling is then interpreted as a positive reaction toward the object resulting higher liking. However, evidence regarding the processes underlying this relation is scarce. To show that the subjective feeling can indeed be responsible for liking, we experimentally manipulated processing ease by providing false physiological feedback (varying skin conductance indicated varying feelings of fluency) and by varying presentation times between 100 and 400 ms while participants viewed line drawings of objects and rated them for liking. A first experiment showed that both false physiological feedback and presentation duration influenced liking. Stimuli primed with a (fake) visualization of a physiological correlate of high ease of processing were liked more than stimuli primed with a low ease of processing. Liking ratings in a no-feedback condition fell between the high and low feedback conditions. To explore possible compatibility effects of coupling visual feedback to the fluency interpretation, in a second experiment we reversed the feedback interpretation-visualization of high skin conductance now indicated low ease of processing. The results show a similar pattern, though the effect was subtler. This indicates that when the coupling of feedback to fluency is less apparent or less compatible, the feeling is less strongly linked to liking. Our results support the claim that variations in the feeling of fluency affect the appreciation of objects in terms of liking. Together, the experiments suggest the contributions of processing ease as well as compatibility to the experience of liking.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 May 2020.
All research outputs
#14,228,602
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,584
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,518
of 263,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#113
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 263,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
