The only-exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon whereby people tend to develop preferences for things just because they are familiar with them. In social psychology, this effect is sometimes called the principle of intimacy . The effect has been shown by many things, including words, Chinese characters, paintings, facial images, geometric figures, and sounds. In the study of interpersonal attraction, the more often a person is seen by someone, the more fun and the person likes it.
Video Mere-exposure effect
Research
The earliest known research known to this effect was done by Gustav Fechner in 1876. Edward B. Titchener also documented the effects and described the "warmth of light" felt in the presence of something familiar. However, the Titchener hypothesis was discarded after it was tested and the results show that the increase in preference for objects does not depend on the individual's subjective impression of how familiar the object is. The rejection of the Titchener hypothesis spurs further research and development of current theories.
The best known scholar to develop the only-exposure effect is Robert Zajonc. Prior to his research, he observed that exposure to new stimuli initially led to a fear/avoidance response by all organisms. Any recurrent exposure to new stimuli causes less fear and more of a tactical approach by observing organisms. After repeated exposure, the observing organism will start reacting happily to the once-novel stimulus. This observation led to the research and development of just-exposure effects.
Zajonc (1960s-1990s)
In the 1960s, a series of laboratory experiments by Robert Zajonc showed that simply exposing subjects to a known stimulus made them judge it more positively than others, a similar stimulus that has not been presented. At the beginning of his research, Zajonc saw the language and frequency of words used. He found that positive words overall received more usage than their negative counterparts. In subsequent years, he moved to show similar results for various stimuli such as polygons, images, expression photographs, absurd words, and idiographs, and when judged by procedures such as likes, pleasures and actions forced choice.
In 1980, Zajonc proposed the hypothesis of affective preference, hypothesized that affective reactions (ie likes) could be "raised with minimal stimulus input". Through mere exposure experiments, Zajonc sought to provide evidence for the affective-virility hypothesis, namely, that affective judgments were made without prior cognitive processes. Zajonc tested this hypothesis by presenting repeated stimuli to participants on the suboptimal threshold so that they did not show awareness or recognition of recurring stimuli (when asked if they had seen images, responses at probability levels), but continued to show an affective bias against repetitive stimuli. Zajonc compared the results of prime numbers exposed over time that allow awareness for stimuli to be displayed briefly so that participants do not show consciousness. He found that the prime numbers shown are shorter and unrecognized encouraging a faster response to liking than the primes shown at the conscious level.
One experiment was conducted to test the effect of exposure only using a fertilized chicken egg for the test subjects. Tones of two different frequencies are played for different groups of chicks when they are still not hatching. After hatching, each tone is played for both groups of chicks. Each set of chicks consistently chooses a tone played before. Zajonc tested the exposure-only effect by exposing Chinese characters for a short amount of time to two groups of individuals. Individuals are then told that these symbols represent adjectives and are asked to judge whether symbols have positive or negative connotations. Symbols that have previously been seen by test subjects are consistently rated more positively than the invisible ones. In similar experiments, individuals were not asked to rate symbol connotations, but to describe their mood after the experiment. Group members with repeated exposure to certain characters are reported to be in a better mood and feel more positive than those who do not receive repeated exposure.
In other variations, subjects are shown images on a tachistoscope for a very short duration that can not be felt consciously. This subliminal exposure produces the same effect, although it is important to note that subliminal effects are unlikely to occur without controlled laboratory conditions.
According to Zajonc, the effects of mere exposure can occur without conscious awareness, and that "preference does not require conclusions". This Zajonc statement has prompted much research into the relationship between cognition and influence. Zajonc explains that if preferences (or attitudes) are solely based on information units with inherent influence, then persuasion will be quite simple. He argues that this does not happen: such simple persuasion tactics fail miserably. Zajonc states that affective responses to stimuli occur much faster than cognitive responses, and that these responses are often made with much higher self-confidence. He states that the mind (cognition) and feeling (influence) are different, and that cognition is not free from influence, nor does it affect freely from cognition. Zajonc states, "... the form of experience we call the feeling of accompanying all cognition, which arises at the beginning of the registration and retrieval process, although weak and vague, and it originates from a parallel, separate, and independent system in organism."
In relation to the effects of exposure and mere decision-making, Zajonc states that there is no empirical evidence that cognition precedes any form of decision-making. Although this is a common assumption, Zajonc argues that the opposite is more likely: decisions are made with little or no cognitive process. He likens to decide something by liking it, which means that the more often we are aware of the reason to rationalize the decision, rather than decide upon it. Therefore, we make a judgment first, and then attempt to justify the assessment by rationalization. Goetzinger (1968)
Charles Goetzinger conducted experiments using the only-exposure effect in his class at Oregon State University. Goetzinger had a student come to class with a large black bag with only his legs visible. The black bag was placed on the table behind the classroom. The Goetzinger experiment was to observe whether students would treat the black bag according to the Zajonc exposure effect. The hypothesis is confirmed. The students in the first grade treat the black bag with hostility, which from time to time turns into curiosity, and ultimately friendship. This experiment confirms the effect of Zajonc's exposure, by simply presenting the black bag repeatedly to the students, their altered attitudes, or as Zajonc states "only the individual's repeated exposure to the stimulus is a sufficient condition for the improvement of attitudes toward him".
Bornstein (1989)
A meta-analysis of 208 trials found that a strong and reliable only-exposure effect, with effect size r = 0.26. This analysis found that the effect was most intense when unknown stimuli were presented briefly. Only exposure typically achieves maximum effect in 10-20 presentations, and some studies even show that flavor may decrease after a series of longer exposures. For example, people usually prefer songs after they hear them several times, but many repetitions can reduce this preference. The delay between exposure and liking measurement actually tends to increase the power of the effect. The effect is weaker in children, and for pictures and painting compared to other types of stimuli. One of the social psychology experiments shows that exposure to people we do not like at first does not make us less fond of them.
Zola-Morgan (2001)
Maps Mere-exposure effect
Two-factor theory
The only-exposure effect has been explained by a two-factor theory that argues that repeated exposure of the stimulus improves the perceptual smoothness which is the ease with which the stimulus can be processed. The perceptual smoothness, in turn, increases the positive effect. Studies show that repeated exposure improves perceptual smoothness, confirming the first part of a two-factor theory. Subsequent research observed that the perceptual smoothness was positively affective, confirming the second part of the only-exposure effect account's elusiveness.
Apps
Ads
The most obvious application of the exposure-only effect is found in advertising, but research has been mixed for its effectiveness in improving consumer attitudes toward certain companies and products. One study tested the effect of mere exposure to the banner ads seen on a computer screen. The study was conducted on college-aged students who were asked to read articles on the computer while banner ads appeared at the top of the screen. The results show that any group exposed to "test" banners ranks ads better than other ads shown less frequently or not at all. This study supports the evidence for the effects of mere exposure.
A different study suggests that higher levels of media exposure are associated with a lower reputation for the company, even when only the most positive exposure is positive. The subsequent review of this study concludes that exposure leads to ambivalence because it carries a large number of associations, which tend to be profitable and unprofitable. Exposure will most likely help when the company or product is new and foreign to the consumer. An 'optimal' level of exposure to an ad may be present or absent. In the third study, researchers provide consumers with affective motives. A group of thirsty consumers are given a happy face before being offered a drink, while the second group is overwhelmed with an unpleasant face. The prime group with faces are happy to buy more drinks, and are also willing to pay more for drinks than their unhappy colleagues. This study supports Zajonc's claim that choice does not require cognition. Buyers often choose what they like more than they realize.
In the advertising world, the effect of exposure simply shows that consumers do not need to be fully aware of the ads: simple repetition is enough to create a 'memory trace' in the minds of consumers and unconsciously affect their consumption behavior. One expert explains this relationship as follows: "The tendency of approaches created by mere exposure may be preattitudinal in the sense that they do not require the kind of deliberate processing necessary to shape the brand's attitude."
More areas
The only-exposure effect exists in most areas of human decision-making. For example, many stock traders tend to invest in domestic corporate securities simply because they are more familiar with them despite the fact that international markets offer the same or even better alternatives. The only-exposure effect also distorts the results of the journal ranking survey; academics who previously published or completed a review for a certain academic journal level were dramatically higher than those who did not. There are mixed results on the question of whether mere exposure can improve relationships between different social groups. When the group already has a negative attitude toward each other, further exposure can increase hostility. Statistical analysis of the voting pattern found that candidate exposure had a strong influence on the number of votes they received, different from the popularity of the policy.
See also
- Effects of illusionary truth
- Interpersonal appeal
- Propinquity effect
- Subliminal advertising
References
External links
- Change your mind: The new exposure theory
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments