Erratum: If It’s Difficult to Pronounce, It Might Not Be Risky: The Effect of Fluency on Judgment of Risk Does Not Generalize to New Stimuli(Psychological Science, 28, (427–436).10.1177/0956797616685770);If It’s Difficult to Pronounce, It Might Not Be Risky: The Effect of Fluency on Judgment of Risk Does Not Generalize to New Stimuli

Psychological Science

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 427-436

  Bahník, Štěpán ^a,b   Vranka, Marek A ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS   (Czech Republic)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^c Charles University   (Czech Republic)

^d CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

fluency; judgment; open data; open materials; preregistered; replication; risk; stimulus sampling

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; NOMENCLATURE; SPEECH; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; RISK-TAKING; SPEECH; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85018402514     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797620933249     Document Type: Erratum

References (17)

1. Alter A. L., Oppenheimer D. M., (2008). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 985–990.
2. Alter A. L., Oppenheimer D. M., (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.
3. Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. J., (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
4. Cho H., (2015). The malleable effect of name fluency on pharmaceutical drug perception. Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 1369–1374.
5. Dohle S., Siegrist M., (2014). Fluency of pharmaceutical drug names predicts perceived hazardousness, assumed side effects and willingness to buy. Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 1241–1249.
6. Fiedler K., (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere—not only in neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 163–171.
7. Galak J., Nelson L. D., (2011). The virtues of opaque prose: How lay beliefs about fluency influence perceptions of quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 250–253.
8. Judd C. M., Westfall J., Kenny D. A., (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
9. Lewis M. L., Frank M. C., (2016). The length of words reflects their conceptual complexity. Cognition, 153, 182–195.
10. McGlone M. S., Tofighbakhsh J., (1999). The Keats heuristic: Rhyme as reason in aphorism interpretation. Poetics, 26, 235–244.
11. Pocheptsova A., Labroo A. A., Dhar R., (2010). Making products feel special: When metacognitive difficulty enhances evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1059–1069.
12. Reber R., Winkielman P., Schwarz N., (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.
13. Song H., Schwarz N., (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20, 135–138.
14. Topolinski S., Strack F., (2010). False fame prevented: Avoiding fluency effects without judgmental correction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 721–733.
15. Tversky A., Kahneman D., (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207–232.
16. Westfall J., Judd C. M., Kenny D. A., (2015). Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 390–399.
17. Westfall J., Kenny D. A., Judd C. M., (2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2020–2045.