Can better linguistic fluency improve the memorability and credibility of a sentence?

Can better linguistic fluency improve the memorability and credibility of a sentence?

Hamish Bromley

07.09.2022

Processing fluency is often defined as how easy information is to comprehend based on a range of characteristics. One form of processing fluency is linguistic fluency, which refers to how easy a sentence is to interpret, regardless of the information within it. Some research suggests that disfluency can increase the recall of material, but this is contested. Previous studies have also shown that the linguistic fluency of a sentence can be improved with literary devices, such as rhyme, and that this can result in better perceptions of credibility. Research has yet to investigate how alliteration, as an example of linguistic fluency, could improve perceptions of credibility and the memorability of a sentence. This research investigated this by operationalising lists of alliterating and non-alliterating aphorisms, alongside measures of self-reported credibility and memorability, in a between-subjects study. Results of two independent t-tests provided two significant results, suggesting that better linguistic fluency improves the credibility and memorability of a sentence. Implications for researchers, the legal system and advertising are discussed.

Linguistic Fluency, Alliteration, Advertising,Memory,Credibility

Materials
The preliminary five aphorisms were provided by Astroten with five further aphorisms being added to increase the power of the study. Aphorisms that were selected came from various literary examples, such as quotes from English Literature (Williams, 2011). Alternatively, some aphorisms were created using the definition “a short clever saying that is intended to express a general truth” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2022). The most common alliterating aphorisms, such as “All roads lead to Rome”, were purposefully avoided so that the effect of familiarity had a reduced effect on the memorability self-report. When creating the non-alliterating aphorisms, alliterating words were exchanged for non-alliterating words using a thesaurus so that the change in alliterative properties did not affect the overall meaning. The alliterating and non-alliterating aphorisms were kept divided into two different lists and were counterbalanced in a random order for each participant (Appendix C). Participants were asked to rate the credibility of the aphorisms based on a Likert scale of 1-9, in parallel with the scale used by McGlone and Tofighbakhsh (1999).
Participants were asked to complete two games of Sudoku as a filler task (Appendix D). The grids were designed so that participants would begin with the easier version and move on to a more challenging version to ensure that the task occupied the full amount of time. Instructions were provided so that those who were unfamiliar with the game were still able to attempt the task.
18
Additionally, participants were given a piece of paper with 10 individual sections to write down as many of the aphorisms as they could remember at the end of the study. They were also provided with a pen, and time was kept using a watch.
Design
This study used a between-subjects design. This was chosen because there was a strong chance that order effects would impact the results of the memory test in a repeated measures design, due to the similarity between the alliterating and non-alliterating aphorisms. Choosing to mix the aphorisms could have resulted in demand characteristics affecting the results as the disparity between them would have been obvious to the participant. This is something that Oppenheimer and Frank (2008) were also keen to avoid. A quantitative data collection approach was taken because it was judged as the most appropriate way to measure memory, as well as facilitating comparison with other studies that have employed similar methods (McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 1999; Kara-Yakoubian et al 2022). Participants were either part of the alliterating or non-alliterating aphorisms condition.
Procedure
Ethical approval for this study was given by the supervisor of this research, in line with Lancaster University Psychology Department protocols (Appendix E). When participants were approached to take part in the study they were first asked to read an information sheet (Appendix F) followed by a consent form, completion of which evidenced their informed consent to take part. Participation began in a quiet room within the university library. It was ensured that they could spare 20 minutes to take part and that they had turned off their phones before the study began. They began the study by rating each aphorism in
19
their list on a scale of 1-9 based on how credible they thought the aphorism was. The instructions were read to them, but they also had the opportunity to read them if they were unsure (Appendix G). They were then given three minutes to memorise as many of the aphorisms as possible.
Following this, participants spent 10 minutes completing the Sudoku, with instructions again read to them and provided on the sheet. Once the 10 minutes were complete the participants were asked to spend five minutes trying to recall as many of the aphorisms from their list as possible by writing them down (Appendix H). They were given one point for every aphorism they could remember correctly. No points were given if the participants could only remember parts of the aphorism. As short-term memory is often described as being 7+/-2 (Miller 1956), memorisation of the entire list would likely have been impossible. Therefore, a prompt was added by reading the participant the first word from each of their aphorisms after three minutes. This aligns more closely with advertising research, which frequently measures prompted recall (Romaniuk, 2006; Charlesworth et al, 2022). On completion, participants were thanked for their participation in the research and given their £5 payment. They were also provided with a debrief sheet (Appendix I) that provided details of resources related to the study and the contact details of the researcher and supervisor.

Lancaster University

Excel/xlsx.

Bromley2022

Coco

Open

Dissertation

English

Data

Marketing