<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# The constituents of mental ease: A study in the factor structure of fluency experiences

Kaiwen (Kev) Zhou¹, David C. Vaidis², David B. Flora¹, Rolf Reber³, & Christian Unkelbach⁴

¹York University; ²Université de Toulouse, CNRS; ³The University of Oslo; ⁴University of Cologne, Social Cognition Centre Cologne

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## Introduction

* Fluency, defined as the ease of mental processing, influences human evaluations of objects, information, and people. It makes paintings look more beautiful, unknown statements to be truer, and people to be more trustworthy.

* The literature identified subtypes of fluency experiences, such as the distinction between conceptual fluency (e.g., understanding a complex-plot novel) and perceptual fluency (e.g., trying to read with a blurry vision).

* However, these distinctions are mostly conceptual and may have limitations in predicting unique outcomes in domains of judgment, such as liking and confidence.

* In this scale development and validation study, we explore the underlying dimensions of fluency experiences and investigate whether and how they can be differentiated through factor analyses.

## Methods

### Participants

* 923 undergraduates ($M_{age} = 19.86$, $SD = 4.01$; 609 Female) from the York University participant pool participated in exchange for course credits. After pre-registered exclusions, 770 participants remained. Data then split in half for EFA and CFA. See **Figure 1** for ethnicity breakdown.

### Materials

* The Preference for Fluency Scale (PFS) (7-point Likert-type scale, 76 items)

#### [Convergent and Divergent Validity]

* Preference for Consistency Scale

* Need for Closure Scale

* Modern Racism Scale

* Gambling and Self Monitoring Scale

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Proportion breakdown of participant ethnicity</figcaption></figure>

### Procedure

* Participants first complete the PFS, followed by additional scales presented in a randomized order. Items within each scale were also randomized for each participant.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

## The Five Socio-Cognitive Functions of Fluency

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** The five latent constructs of the 34-items Preference for Fluency Scale.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Corrgram of Five PFS Factors and Validation Scales</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Resolution</th><th>Aesthetics</th><th>Interaction</th><th>Self</th><th>Truth</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Resolution</th><td>-</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><th>Aesthetics</th><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><th>Interaction</th><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><th>Self</th><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><th>Truth</th><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Correlations among the five PFS factors, N = 385.</caption><thead><tr><th>Scales for assessing validity</th><th>Correlation (p-value)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Preference for Consistency***</td><td>0.57 (&lt; .001)</td></tr><tr><td>Need for Closure***</td><td>0.55 (&lt; .001)</td></tr><tr><td>Modern Racism</td><td>0.06 (.151)</td></tr><tr><td>Gambling and Self-Monitoring</td><td>-0.05 (.193)</td></tr><tr><td>Openness</td><td>0.00 (.884)</td></tr><tr><td>Conscientiousness***</td><td>0.15 (&lt; .001)</td></tr><tr><td>Extroversion</td><td>0.06 (.081)</td></tr><tr><td>Agreeableness**</td><td>0.09 (.013)</td></tr><tr><td>Neuroticism</td><td>0.01 (.729)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>**Table 2.** Correlations between the PFS and all scales included, N = 770.</caption>

## Item Generation & Pilot Studies

### Item Generation

* Taking the deductive approach, we reviewed the literature and generated 65 items with the goal of assessing individual differences for fluency experiences across conceptual, perceptual, self, and social domains.

### Pilot Studies

* Pilot Study 1 (N = 236) failed to reveal a social fluency factor as originally predicted. Yet, the results revealed two unpredicted latent constructs: **Fluency for Truth**, and **Interaction Fluency**. We conducted Pilot Study 2 (N = 207) which replicated the five-factor model with good fit indices. The pilot studies yielded 76 items for scale development.

## Analyses

### Initial Item Reduction:

* Before analyses, we removed items with average inter-item correlation < 0.10 (n = 2) and one from each of four pairs of highly correlated, conceptually redundant items (n = 4), leaving 70 items for the factor analyses.

### Exploratory Factor Analysis

* A scree plot of 385 responses on 70 items suggests a five-factor model. estimated with the oblique rotation, and replicated **Resolution, Aesthetics, Interaction, Self, and Truth** model from the pilot studies.

* We dropped items with factor loadings < 0.40 (n = 36) to improve model fit. A rerun of EFA on the final 34 items showed satisfactory factor loading structure, RMSEA (0.04), and Tucker-Lewis Index (0.90). **Table 1** shows latent construct correlations. Scan QR code for full scale and FA results.

### Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Scale Validation

* Five-factor model estimation with maximum likelihood revealed CFI (0.92), TLI (0.91), RMSEA (0.03), and SRMR (0.06) We also assessed the convergent and divergent validities of PFS with multiple scales. See **Table 2**.

## Discussion

### The factor structure of Preference for Fluency Scale

* The five dimensions of fluency experiences—Resolution, Aesthetics, Self, Interaction, and Truth—describe the socio-cognitive functions of fluency. Each dimension captures specific preferences related to such a function, such as the enjoyment of immediate results, preference for clear stimuli, adherence to personal truth, and comfort in smooth social interactions. These dimensions are distinct yet interrelated (see **Table 1**). This approach differs from the literature that differentiates fluency experiences based on modalities, instead highlighting socio-cognitive functions.

### Future Directions

* We conduct behavioural validation to examine domains of judgments and attitudes that could be predicted by the PFS as well as by each category of the fluency construct.