Interestingly, the participants in those experiments included college students, amnesic patients, rats, and even newborn chicks, suggesting that the mere exposure effect reflects a fairly fundamental aspect of psychological functioning.ĭuring this research, scientists have discovered several conditions that modify the strength of the mere exposure effect. Since then, researchers have experimentally documented the mere exposure effect using a wide variety of stimuli, including simple and complex line drawings and paintings, simple and complex tonal sequences and musical pieces, geometric figures, foods, odors, and photographs of people. For example, he performed an experiment and showed that nonsensical words as well as yearbook pictures of faces are rated more favorably after they have been merely exposed to participants. To alleviate concerns associated with the correlational evidence, Zajonc also presented experimental evidence. However, this evidence is correlational, so it is impossible to say if stimulus frequency is the cause of positive meaning or if positive meaning causes the stimulus to be used more frequently. Similar findings have also been obtained with numbers, letters, and other apparently neutral stimuli. 3,644), and first is more frequent than last (5,154 vs. 178), on is more frequent than off (30,224 vs. Thus, the word pretty is used more frequently than ugly (1,195 vs. ![]() For example, Zajonc reported that words with positive rather than negative meanings have a higher frequency of usage in literature, magazines, and other publications. The first kind of evidence was correlational and established a relationship between the frequency of occurrence of certain stimuli and their evaluative meaning. The mere exposure effect was first systematically examined by Robert Zajonc, who reported his findings in the influential 1968 article “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure.” He presented two kinds of evidence in support of the mere exposure effect. In short, contrary to the adage that familiarity breeds contempt, the mere exposure effect suggests just the opposite: Becoming familiar with a novel stimulus engenders liking for the stimulus. So, for example, briefly glimpsing a picture or passively listening to a melody is enough for the picture and melody to become preferred over pictures and melodies that one has not seen or heard before. All that is required is that the stimulus is merely shown, however briefly or incidentally, to the individual. Interestingly, the mere exposure effect does not require any kind of reward for perceiving the stimulus. Perhaps the stimulus is a painting on the wall, a melody on a radio, or a face of a person you pass by every day-somehow all these stimuli tend to “grow on you.” The mere exposure effect is technically defined as an enhancement of attitude toward a novel stimulus as a result of repeated encounters with that stimulus. ![]() ![]() The mere exposure effect describes the phenomenon that simply encountering a stimulus repeatedly somehow makes one like it more.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |