Relying on Accessible Content Versus Accessibility Experiences: The Case of Processing Capacity

Abstract

Ease-of-retrieval and processing capacity -2 -Abstract Three studies investigated the interplay between processing capacity and reliance on accessibility experiences versus reliance on accessible content. Participants low in processing capacity were more likely to rely on the experience of ease versus difficulty, whereas participants high in processing capacity were more likely to base their judgment on the accessible content information. This result was robust across two different judgmental domains and was further supported by the assessment of processing latencies during judgment formation as an indicator of the underlying processes. In combination, the reported findings suggest that reliance on ease-of-retrieval experiences is particularly likely in situations of low processing capacity.Keywords: Ease-of-retrieval, subjective experiences, processing capacity, heuristic Ease-of-retrieval and processing capacity -3 -Relying on accessible content versus accessibility experiences:The case of processing capacity It has long been suggested that judgments may be based on both accessible content (e.g., Higgins, 1996;Wyer & Srull, 1989) and subjective experiences that accompany information processing (e.g., contributions in Bless & Forgas, 2000). With respect to subjective experiences, the role of accessibility experiences has received particular attention. Starting with Tversky and Kahneman (1973), it has been suggested that the experience of the "ease with which instances or associations could be brought to mind" (p. 208) influences judgments and decisions across a wide range of domains (for an overview see Schwarz, 1998Schwarz, , 2004 Despite the highly prominent role of the ease-of-retrieval heuristic in judgment and decision making, and despite the seeming universality of the influence of the experienced ease-ofretrieval, only a handful of research endeavors investigated whether the use of these kinds of cognitive experiences is ubiquitous, or whether it is restricted to certain situational circumstances. The current research set out to further our understanding of this important question. Previous research on factors that moderate reliance on accessibility experiencesApart from a small set of investigations, we know little about factors that moderate the reliance on subjective experiences in judgment formation (for notable exceptions, see below). This scarcity is striking, considering both the theoretical (for a review, see Schwarz, 1998) and practical importance (e.g., Wänke et al., 1997;Raghubir & Menon, 1998;Dijksterhuis et al., 1999) of cognitive subjective experiences such as the ease-of-retrieval phenomenon. One obvious reason for this lack of evidence is the fact that both paths of judgment formation addressed here -accessible content versus accessibility experiencesEase-of-retrieval and processing capacity

When Do People Rely on Affective and Cognitive Feelings in Judgment? A Review

“…1 Cognitive feelings. Similar to affective feelings, cognitive feelings of ease-of-retrieval have been shown to influence a wide variety of judgments, such as frequency estimates (e.g., Greifeneder & Bless, 2008;Tversky & Kahneman, 1973), assertiveness judgments (e.g., Schwarz et al, 1991), attitudes toward political issues (e.g., Greifeneder & Bless, 2007;Ruder & Bless, 2003), health-related judgments (e.g., Raghubir & Menon, 1998), and product evaluations (e.g., Wänke, Bohner, & Jurkowitsch, 1997). Although this is only a short list (for reviews, see Schwarz, 2004;Schwarz & Clore, 2007), it clearly shows that judgments can be influenced by such cognitive feelings.…”

“…Second, the FI perspective generally assumes that feelings operate as single pieces of information that integrate a wide variety of information into a unified whole (e.g., Clore & Parrott, 1994;Koriat & Levy-Sadot, 1999; for supporting empirical evidence, see Greifeneder & Bless, 2007;Ruder & Bless, 2003). If this is the case, the conditions that govern the use of feelings in judgment may be similar to those that foster the reliance on other single pieces of information, such as heuristic cues.…”

“…For example, whereas a positive affective reaction toward a target is easily mapped onto a liking of this target, an ease experience while recalling information about the same target needs to be further interpreted, for instance, in terms of frequency (e.g., Greifeneder & Bless, 2007). Similarly, much of the meaning of affective feelings is about valence (the positivity of negativity of things; e.g., Schwarz & Clore, 2007; but see Lerner & Keltner, 2000;Raghunathan & Pham, 1999), whereas the meaning of cognitive feelings is potentially broader (e.g., being indicative of frequency, confidence, truth, etc.).…”

Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology

“…Increased cognitive load, experimentally induced by reducing processing resources Ferreira et al 2006;Greifeneder and Bless 2007), and time pressure (Betsch, Plessner, Schwieren, and Gütig 2001) favor S1 use. While positive mood appears to lead to a greater intuitive dominance, negative mood seems to foster reflective processing (Bless 2001;cf.…”

Habitual self-regulatory orientation and ease-of-retrieval: Regulatory focus qualifies the impact of subjective experiences in judgment

“…Förster and Higgins 2005) may invite the consideration of information sources other than content, such as ease-of-retrieval. Because promotion-focused individuals are known to favor speed over accuracy (Förster et al 2003), and because ease-of-retrieval experiences allow for particularly fast and efficient judgment formation (e.g., Greifeneder and Bless 2007), promotion-focused individuals may prefer ease-ofretrieval experiences over accessible content information.…”