Intuitive (in)coherence judgments are guided by processing fluency, mood and affect

Semantic versus perceptual priming: dissecting their impact on intuitive judgments of semantic coherence

This research explores the mechanisms underlying the intuitive processing of semantic coherence, focusing on the effects of semantic and perceptual priming on semantic coherence detection. Two studies examined how these priming types influence individuals' abilities to discern semantic incoherence. In Study 1, we used solutions to semantically coherent triads as primes, finding that such priming significantly improves participants' accuracy and confidence in identifying incoherent elements within word tetrads. These results corroborate the hypothesis that intuitive judgments in linguistic tasks are closely tied to the processing fluency elicited by semantic connections. In Study 2, we show that perceptual priming does not significantly enhance accuracy, albeit it does increase the confidence with which individuals make their judgments. Distinct effects of semantic and perceptual priming on intuitive judgments highlight the complex interplay between processing fluency and affect in shaping intuitive judgments of semantic coherence. We discuss the nuanced roles of semantic and perceptual factors in influencing the accuracy and confidence of intuitive decisions.

How Difficult Was It? Metacognitive Judgments About Problems and Their Solutions After the Aha Moment

The insight phenomenon is thought to comprise two components: cognitive and affective (the Aha! experience). The exact nature of the Aha! experience remains unclear; however, several explanations have been put forward. Based on the processing fluency account, the source of the Aha! experience is a sudden increase in processing fluency, associated with emerging of a solution. We hypothesized that in a situation which the Aha! experience accompanies the solution in, the problem would be judged as less difficult, regardless of the objective difficulty. We also planned to confirm previously discovered associations between the Aha! experience and accuracy, confidence, and pleasure. To test the proposed hypothesis, during the preliminary stage of the study, we developed a set of 100 remote associate problems in Russian (RAT-RUS) and asked 125 participants to solve problems and indicate the Aha! moment (after solution generation or solution presentation), confidence, difficulty, and likability of each problem. As expected, the Aha! experience often accompanied correct solutions and correlated with confidence judgments. We also found a positive correlation between the Aha! experience and problem likability. As for the main hypothesis, we confirmed that the Aha! experience after the presentation of the solution was associated with a decrease in subjective difficulty. When participants could not solve a problem but experienced the Aha! moment after the solution was presented to them, the problem was perceived as easier than one without the Aha! experience. We didn’t find the same effect for the Aha! after solution generation. Thus, our study partially supports the processing fluency account and demonstrates the association between the Aha! experience and metacognitive judgments about the accuracy and difficulty of problems.

Affective responses to coherence in high and low risk scenarios

Presenting information in a coherent fashion has been shown to increase processing fluency, which in turn influences affective responses. The pattern of responses have been explained by two apparently competing accounts: hedonic marking (response to fluency is positive) and fluency amplification (response to fluency can be positive or negative, depending on stimuli valence). This paper proposes that these accounts are not competing explanations, but separate mechanisms, serving different purposes. Therefore, their individual contributions to overall affective responses should be observable. In three experiments, participants were presented with businesses scenarios, with riskiness (valence) and coherence (fluency) manipulated, and affective responses recorded. Results suggested that increasing the fluency of stimuli increases positive affect. If the stimulus is negative, then increasing fluency simultaneously increases negative affect. These affective responses appeared to cancel each other out (Experiment 1) when measured using self-report bipolar scales. However, separate measurement of positive and negative affect, either using unipolar scales (Experiment 2) or using facial electromyography (Experiment 3), provided evidence for co-occurring positive and negative affective responses, and therefore the co-existence of hedonic marking and fluency amplification mechanisms.