An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect

This article investigates two competing explanations of the mere exposure effect—the cognition-based perceptual fluency/misattribution theory (PF/M) and the affect-based hedonic fluency model (HFM)—under incidental exposure conditions. In two studies, the classical mere exposure effect is replicated in the context of banner advertising. The findings rule out the cognition-based PF/M and suggest that the spontaneous affective reaction resulting from perceptual fluency is a crucial link between fluency and evaluation. The studies provide strong evidence that the spontaneous affect influences evaluative judgments through a more complex process, likely by coloring the interpretation of the fluency experience and the nature of resulting metacognitions relating fluency to liking. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are mentioned.

[1]  N. Schwarz Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[2]  L. Jacoby,et al.  On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment , 2003 .

[4]  T. Meyvis,et al.  Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment , 2001 .

[5]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  G. Clore,et al.  Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. , 1983 .

[7]  R. Bornstein,et al.  The Attribution and Discounting of Perceptual Fluency: Preliminary Tests of a Perceptual Fluency/Attributional Model of the Mere Exposure Effect , 1994 .

[8]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[9]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  Angela Y. Lee The Mere Exposure Effect: An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation Revisited , 2001 .

[11]  B. Shiv,et al.  Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making , 1999 .

[12]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[13]  P. Winkielman,et al.  False recognition across meaning, language, and stimulus format: Conceptual relatedness and the feeling of familiarity , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[14]  George Mandler,et al.  Nonspecific Effects of Exposure on Stimuli That Cannot Be Recognized , 1987 .

[15]  Joel B. Cohen,et al.  Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment , 2001 .

[16]  Christie L. Nordhielm The Influence of Level of Processing on Advertising Repetition Effects , 2002 .

[17]  Thomas J. Madden,et al.  Attitude toward the Ad: An Assessment of Diverse Measurement Indices under Different Processing “Sets” , 1988 .

[18]  Angela Y. Lee The Prevalence of Metacognitive Routes to Judgment , 2004 .

[19]  R. Bornstein,et al.  Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.