Recently proposed accounts of intuitive judgments of semantic coherence assume that processing fluency results in a positive affective response leading to successful assessment of semantic coherence. The present paper investigates whether processing fluency may indicate semantic incoherence as well. In two studies, we employ a new paradigm in which participants have to detect an incoherent item among semantically coherent words. In Study 1, we show participants accurately indicating an incoherent item despite not being able to provide an accurate solution to coherent words. Further, this effect is modified by affective valence of solution words that are not retrieved from memory. Study 2 replicates those results and extend them by showing that mood moderates incoherence judgments independently of affective valence of solutions. The results support processing fluency account of intuitive semantic coherence judgments and show that it is not fluency per se but fluency variations that drive judgments.
Log in om toegang te krijgen Hier inloggen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Bolte, A., & Goschke, T. (2005). On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1248–1255. CrossRef
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9(6), 435–440. CrossRef
Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthazard, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 72–110. CrossRef
deVries, M., Holland, R. W., Chenier, T., Starr, M. J., & Winkielman, P. (2010). Happiness cools the warm glow of familiarity: Psychophysiological evidence that mood modulates the familiarity-affect link. Psychological Science, 21(3), 321–328. CrossRef
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2009). Operating principles versus operating conditions in the distinction between associative and propositional processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2), 207–208. CrossRef
Huntsinger, J. R. (2012). Does positive affect broaden and negative affect narrow attentional scope? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 595–600. CrossRef
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1206–1217. CrossRef
Kenealy, P. M. (1997). Mood state-dependent retrieval: the effects of induced mood on memory reconsidered. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(2), 290–317. PubMed
Mednick, S. A. (1968). Remote associates test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2(3), 213–214. CrossRef
Ohme, R. K. (1997). Social comparison of misfortune: Companions in misery phenomenon. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 28(2), 189–201.
Roese, N. J., & Sherman, J. W. (2007). Expectancies. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 91–115). New York: Guilford Press.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. CrossRef
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3–4), 296–303.
Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., & Isham, J. T. (1993). Implicit versus explicit impression-formation—the differing effects of overt labeling and covert priming on memory and impressions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(1), 17–41. CrossRef
Topolinski, S., & Deutsch, R. (2012a). Phasic affective modulation of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication.
Topolinski, S., Likowski, K., Weyers, P., & Strack, F. (2008). The face of fluency: Semantic coherence automatically elicits a specific pattern of facial muscle reactions. Cognition and Emotion, 23(2), 260–271. CrossRef
Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Gaining insight into the “aha” experience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 402–405. CrossRef
Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2008). Where there’s a will—there’s no intuition. The unintentional basis of semantic coherence judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 1032–1048. CrossRef
Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009a). The analysis of intuition: Processing fluency and affect in judgements of semantic coherence. Cognition and Emotion, 23(8), 1465–1503. CrossRef
Vermeulen, N. (2012). Current positive and negative affective states modulate attention: An attentional blink study. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 542–545. CrossRef
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Intuitive (in)coherence judgments are guided by processing fluency, mood and affect