Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Short Research Article

Typicality or Fluency?

A Comparison of Two Hypotheses About Cognitive Effects of Japanese Script

Published Online:June 27, 2018https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000405

Abstract

Abstract. The modern Japanese writing system comprises different scripts, such as Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana. These scripts differ greatly in both typicality and frequency of usage. In two experimental studies using names of cities or prefectures in Japan as target stimuli, we examined two hypotheses, the typicality hypothesis and fluency hypothesis, in order to assess effects of Japanese script on psychological processes. It was found that Kanji names induced typical thinking in a participant’s description of a location, whereas Katakana names induced rather nontypical thinking. In contrast, we found that script differences did not affect distance estimations. We discuss these effects of Japanese script on psychological processes in terms of the typicality hypothesis (differences in typical usage habits between Kanji and Katakana that affect psychological processes).

References

  • Alter, A. L. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008a). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 985–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.5.985 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Alter, A. L. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008b). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or Why New York is a Large City, but New York is a civilized Jungle). Psychological Science, 19, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Doyle, J. R. & Bottomley, P. A. (2004). Font appropriateness and brand choice. Journal of Business Research, 57, 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00487-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hertwig, R., Herzog, S. M., Schooler, L. J. & Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1191–1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013025 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.248 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Honda, H., Abe, K., Matsuka, T. & Yamagishi, K. (2011). The role of familiarity in binary choice inferences. Memory and Cognition, 39, 851–863. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0057-9 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Honda, H., Matsuka, T. & Ueda, K. (2017). Memory-based simple heuristics as attribute substitution: Competitive tests of binary choice inference models. Cognitive Science, 41, 1093–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12395 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hsee, C. K. & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • McKenzie, C. M. & Nelson, J. (2003). What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 596–602. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196520 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Leong, L. M., McKenzie, C. R. M., Sher, S. & Müller-Trede, J. (2017). The role of inference in attribute framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2030 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Oppenheimer, D. M. & Frank, M. C. (2008). A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition, 106, 1178–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.010 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Pocheptsova, A., Labroo, A. A. & Dhar, R. (2010). Making products feel special: When metacognitive difficulty enhances evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1059 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Poffenberger, A. T. & Franken, R. B. (1923). A study of the appropriateness of type faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071591 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schooler, L. J. & Hertwig, R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112, 610–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.610 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Sher, S. & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2008a). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2008b). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26, 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar