Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-3
Mere Exposure Effects on Implicit Stimulus Evaluation: The Moderating Role of Evaluation Task,Number of Stimulus Presentations,and Memory for Presentation Frequency
The mere exposure (ME) effect refers to the well-established finding that people evaluate a stimulus more positively after repeated exposure to it. So far, the vast majority of studies on ME effects have examined changes in explicit stimulus evaluation. We describe the results of three large-scale studies (combined N = 3,623) that examined ME effects on implicit stimulus evaluation. We looked at three moderators of these effects: the implicit evaluation measure, the number of stimulus presentations, and memory for presentation frequency. We observed ME effects on implicit stimulus evaluations as measured with an Implicit Association Test (IAT) and Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), but not an Evaluative Priming Task (EPT). ME effects were more robust when there were relatively few stimulus presentations and when participants had accurate memory for the presentation frequencies. We discuss how these findings relate to ME effects on explicit evaluations as well as theoretical and practical implications.
Bar-AnanY.De HouwerJ.NosekB. (2010). Evaluative conditioning and conscious knowledge of contingencies: A correlational investigation with large samples. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2313-2335.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
3.
BornsteinR. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.
4.
BornsteinR. F.D’AgostinoP. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545-552.
5.
BornsteinR. F.D’AgostinoP. R. (1994). The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition, 12, 103-128.
6.
BrooksJ. O.WatkinsM. J. (1989). Recognition memory and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 968-976.
7.
De HouwerJ. (2014). A propositional model of implicit evaluation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 342-353.
8.
De HouwerJ.MoorsA. (2010). Implicit measures: Similarities and differences. In GawronskiB.PayneK. B. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 176-193). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
De HouwerJ.Teige-MocigembaS.SpruytA.MoorsA. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 347-368.
10.
de ZilvaD.VuL.NewellB. R.PearsonJ. (2013). Exposure is not enough: Suppressing stimuli from awareness can abolish the mere exposure effect. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77726.
11.
DienesZ. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 274-290.
12.
DienesZ. (2016). How Bayes factors change scientific practice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 78-89.
13.
DovidioJ. F.KawakamiK.GaertnerS. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68.
14.
EschenbeckH.Heim-DregerU.SteinhilberA.KohlmannC.-W. (2016). Self-regulation of healthy nutrition: Automatic and controlled processes. BMC Psychology, 4, Article 4.
15.
FazioR. H.SanbonmatsuD. M.PowellM. C.KardesF. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.
16.
ForscherP. S.LaiC.AxtJ.EbersoleC. R.HermanM.DevineP. G.NosekB. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of change in implicit bias. Retrieved from https://osf.io/awz2p/
17.
FrieseM.HofmannW.SchmittM. (2009). When and why do implicit measures predict behaviour? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 285-338.
18.
GilbertD. T. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 189-211). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
20.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB.a BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
21.
Harmon-JonesE.AllenJ. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 889-898.
22.
HarrisonA. A. (1977). Mere exposure. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 39-83). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23.
HeltonW. S.NäswallK. (2015). Short Stress State Questionnaire: Factor structure and state change assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(1), 20-30.doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000200
24.
HicksJ. A.KingL. A. (2011). Subliminal mere exposure and explicit and implicit positive affective responses. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 726-729.
25.
HofmannW.De HouwerJ.PeruginiM.BaeyensF.CrombezG. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390-421.
26.
HofmannW.GawronskiB.GschwendnerT.LeH.SchmittM. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385.
27.
JaniszewskiC. (1993). Preattentive mere exposure effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 376-392.
28.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
KawakamiN. (2012). The implicit influence of a negative mood on the subliminal mere exposure effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 115, 715-724.
30.
KawakamiN.SatoH.YoshidaF. (2010). Effects of mere exposure on category evaluation measured by the IAT and the GNAT. Shinrigaku Kenkyu, 81, 437-445.
31.
KawakamiN.YoshidaF. (2015). How do implicit effects of subliminal mere exposure become explicit? Mediating effects of social interaction. Social Influence, 10, 43-54.
32.
MandlerG.NakamuraY.Van ZandtB. J. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 646-648.
33.
MonahanJ. L.MurphyS. T.ZajoncR. B. (2000). Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general, and diffuse effects. Psychological Science, 11, 462-466.
34.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.VeveaJ. L.CitkowiczM.LauberE. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 459-498.
35.
NewellB. R. B.ShanksD. D. R. (2007). Recognising what you like: Examining the relation between the mere-exposure effect and recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 103-118.
36.
NosekB. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 565-584.
37.
OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2004). Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the implicit association test: Personalizing the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 653-667.
38.
PayneB. K.ChengC. M.GovorunO.StewartB. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277-293.
39.
PlinerP. (1982). The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite, 3, 283-290.
40.
RothermundK.WenturaD. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139-165.
41.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allow presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366.
42.
SmithC. T.De HouwerJ.NosekB. A. (2013). Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 193-205.
43.
SmithP. K.DijksterhuisA.ChaikenS. (2008). Subliminal exposure to faces and racial attitudes: Exposure to Whites makes Whites like Blacks less. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 441, 50-64.
StaffordT.GrimesA. (2012). Memory enhances the mere exposure effect. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 995-1003.
46.
SzpunarK. K.SchellenbergE. G.PlinerP. (2004). Liking and memory for musical stimuli as a function of exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 370-381.
47.
TropeY. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93, 239-257.
48.
VadilloM. A.KonstantinidisE.ShanksD. R. (2016). Underpowered samples, false negatives, and unconscious learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 87-102.
49.
Van den BerghO.VranaS. R. (1998). Repetition and boredom in a perceptual fluency/attributional model of affective judgements. Cognition & Emotion, 12, 533-553.
50.
Van DesselP.De HouwerJ.GastA. (2016). Approach-avoidance training effects are moderated by awareness of stimulus-action contingencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 81-93.
51.
Van DesselP.De HouwerJ.GastA.SmithC. T. (2015). Instruction-based approach-avoidance effects. Experimental Psychology, 62, 161-169.
52.
Van DesselP.De HouwerJ.GastA.SmithC. T.De SchryverM. (2016). Instructing implicit processes: When instructions to approach or avoid influence implicit but not explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 1-9.
53.
Van DesselP.De HouwerJ.RoetsA.GastA. (2016). Failures to change stimulus evaluations by means of subliminal approach and avoidance training. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, e1-e15.
54.
Van DesselP.HughesS.De HouwerJ. (2018). How Do Actions Influence Attitudes? An Inferential Account of the Impact of Action Performance on Stimulus Evaluation. Manuscript invited for revision at Personality and Social Psychology Review. Prepint available at: https://osf.io/kb3wq/
55.
Van DesselP.MertensG.SmithC. T.De HouwerJ. (2017). The mere exposure instruction effect: Mere exposure instructions influence liking. Experimental Psychology, 64, 299-314.
56.
WagenmakersE.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804.
57.
WangM.-Y.ChangH.-C. (2004). The mere exposure effect and recognition memory. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 1055-1078.
58.
WernerB.von RaminE.SpruytA.RothermundK. (2018). Does sunshine prime loyal . . . or summer? Effects of associative relatedness on the evaluative priming effect in the valent/neutral categorisation task. Cognition & Emotion, 32, 222-230.
59.
WhittleseaB. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235-1253.
60.
WinkielmanP.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989-1000.
61.
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT.CattyS. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17, 799-807.
62.
WittenbrinkB. (2007). Measuring attitudes through priming. In WittenbrinkB.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes: Progress and controversies (pp. 17-58). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
63.
WitvlietC.VranaS. (2007). Play it again Sam: Repeated exposure to emotionally evocative music polarizes liking and smiling responses, and influences other affect reports, facial EMG, and heart rate. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 3-25.
64.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2Pt. 2), 1-27.
65.
ZajoncR. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224-228.
66.
ZajoncR. B.ShaverP.TavrisC.van KreveldD. (1972). Exposure, satiation, and stimulus discriminability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 270-280.
67.
ZebrowitzL. A.WhiteB.WienekeK. (2008). Mere exposure and racial prejudice: Exposure to other-race faces increases liking for strangers of that race. Social Cognition, 26, 259-275.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
