What inhibits the mere-exposure effect: Recollection or familiarity?

Abstract The mere-exposure effect is the formation of a positive affective reaction (PAR) to repeated or single exposure to a stimulus, even in the absence of awareness. The mere-exposure effect indicates that communication effects go beyond “explicit memory”, measured with the traditional measures of (aided) recall and recognition. “Implicit memory” indicates latent communication effects, e.g., liking, for persons exposed to particular stimuli. The mere-exposure effect in the absence of awareness represents implicit memory. In this study, the mere-exposure effect is observed by using a new type of divided-attention method with Chinese participants responding to Chinese characters. The prediction by the two-factor model of mere-exposure effect is confirmed. Recognition (“explicit memory”) may inhibit the mere-exposure effect. Recognition memory is a dual process with two aspects: recollection and familiarity. Employing the process dissociation procedure (PDP) (Jacoby, L.L., 1991. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 513–541), it is found that familiarity of above-chance recognition is greater than that of chance recognition. It is the high level of familiarity and not recollection of abovechance recognition that inhibits the mere-exposure effect. The implications of these findings are that a high level of familiarity inhibits the primary affective reaction and “replaces” this reaction with a more conscious and cognitive evaluation. With the two-factor model, with wear-in (habituation) and wear-out (satiation) factors, the optimal level of exposure may be determined in order to increase the affective reaction. The study shows the robustness of the mere-exposure effect, also for familiar stimuli.

[1]  D. Schacter.  Implicit memory: History and current status. , 1987 .

[2]  D. Schacter,et al.  Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Preference and expectancy arousal: further evidence. , 1970, The Journal of general psychology.

[4]  N. Brody,et al.  Critical importance of exposure duration for affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  P. Barchas,et al.  Processing of preconsciously acquired information measured by hemispheric asymmetry and selection accuracy. , 1986, Behavioral neuroscience.

[6]  John G. Seamon,et al.  The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. , 1995 .

[7]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[8]  Marc Vanhuele,et al.  Mere Exposure and the Cognitive-Affective Debate Revisited , 1994 .

[9]  J. M. Nuttin.  Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name letter effect in twelve European languages , 1987 .

[10]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[11]  A. Yonelinas.  Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: evidence for a dual-process model. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  P. Pliner.  The Effects of Mere Exposure on Liking for Edible Substances , 1982, Appetite.

[13]  D. Berlyne.  Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value , 1970 .

[14]  R. Moreland,et al.  Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects , 1977 .

[15]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Current issues in European social psychology , 1983 .

[16]  R. Porter,et al.  Olfactory preferences resulting from mere exposure in human neonates , 1986 .

[17]  W. Wilson,et al.  Feeling more than we can know: Exposure effects without learning. , 1979 .

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

[19]  J. Kihlstrom.  The cognitive unconscious. , 1987, Science.

[20]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Repetition, Cognitive Responses and Persuasion , 1981 .

[21]  W. F. V. Raaij.  Affective and cognitive reactions to advertising , 1984 .

[22]  R. Bornstein.  Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .

[23]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Carl Obermiller,et al.  Varieties of Mere Exposure: The Effects of Processing Style and Repetition on Affective Response , 1985 .

[25]  G. Bonanno,et al.  Preference, familiarity, and recognition after repeated brief exposures to random geometric shapes. , 1986, The American journal of psychology.

[26]  Andrew P. Yonelinas,et al.  Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: measuring recollection , 1993 .

[27]  G. Mandler,et al.  Aspects of Consciousness , 1987 .

[28]  Chris Janiszewski.  Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects , 1993 .

[29]  L. Cooper,et al.  Implicit memory for possible and impossible objects: constraints on the construction of structural descriptions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  W. Fred van Raaij,et al.  How Consumers React to Advertising , 1989 .

[31]  Stewart Shapiro,et al.  Comparing implicit and explicit memory for brand names from advertisements. , 1996 .

[32]  P. Graf,et al.  Process dissociation procedure: Core assumptions fail, sometimes , 1995 .

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

[34]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Implicit Memory: Theoretical Issues , 1989 .

[35]  D. Schacter,et al.  Intention, awareness, and implicit memory: The retrieval intentionality criterion , 1989 .

[36]  M W Matlin,et al.  Response competition, recognition, and affect. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  In defense of functional independence: Violations of assumptions underlying the process-dissociation procedure? , 1997 .

[38]  L. Jacoby.  A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory , 1991 .

[39]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Additivity of nonconscious affect: combined effects of priming and exposure. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  D. Stang.  Intuition as artifact in mere exposure studies. , 1974 .

[41]  E M Reingold,et al.  Toward a redefinition of implicit memory: process dissociations following elaborative processing and self-generation. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[42]  D. Newlin,et al.  Nonassociative mechanisms in preferences for alcoholic flavors: differences between sons of alcoholics and sons of nonalcoholics. , 1991, Addictive behaviors.

[43]  J. E. Grush.  A Summary Review of Mediating Explanations of Exposure Phenomena , 1979 .

[44]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels , 1984 .

[45]  John G. Seamon,et al.  Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: effects of shadowing, masking, and cerebral laterality , 1983 .

[46]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. , 1980, Science.