In a series of 8 experiments, we demonstrate the existence of a "labeling effect" wherein people intuitively relate preferred choices to prominently labeled cues (such as heads as opposed to tails in a coin toss) and vice versa. Importantly, the observed congruence is asymmetric--it does not manifest for nonprominent cues and nonpreferred choices. This is because the congruence is driven by a process of evaluative matching: prominent cues are liked, but nonprominent cues are neutral or at most slightly negative in contrast. When we test prominent, yet truly negatively labeled cues, we indeed find a matching with less liked products. We discuss the theoretical contributions to the study of preferences and decision making, as well as demonstrate the practical implications to researchers and practitioners by using this process to assess intuitive preferences and reduce the compromise effect.