A mere exposure effect for transformed three-dimensional objects: Effects of reflection, size, or color changes on affect and recognition

Abstract

If the mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory, recognition and affect judgments should be dissociated by experimental variables in the same manner as other explicit and implicit measures. Consistent with results from recognition and picture naming or object decision priming tasks (e.g., Biederman & E.E. Cooper, 1991, 1992; L.A. Cooper, Schacter, Ballesteros, & Moore, 1992), the present research showed that recognition memory but not affective preference was impaired by reflection or size transformations of three-dimensional objects between study and test. Stimulus color transformations had no effect on either measure. These results indicate that representations that support recognition memory code spatial information about an object's left-right orientation and size, whereas representations that underlie affective preference do not. Insensitivity to surface feature changes that do not alter object form appears to be a general characteristic of implicit memory measures, including the affective preference task.

Exposure effects on music preference and recognition

“…A similar dissociation has been reported with the affect and recognition tasks. Seamon et al (1997) have shown that recognition, not affective preference, was impaired by reflection or size transformations of visual objects between study and test, much in the same way as timbre change was found to impair recognition but not likingjudgments.…”

Mere exposure effect: A consequence of direct and indirect fluency–preference links

“…Each study stimulus was presented at the center of the screen for 2500 ms, followed by a 3500 ms interval (see Seamon et al, 1995Seamon et al, , 1997, for a similar procedure).…”

“…Nonetheless, earlier findings showed that, even when a feeling of fluency might be expected, some fluently processed stimuli may continue to elicit an explicit preference, such as after an obvious supraliminal presentation phase, of the kind that has been used in some mere exposure paradigms (e.g., Seamon et al, 1995Seamon et al, , 1997. Consequently, the nature of the connection between ease of processing and explicit preference judgments and the importance of additional indirect factors such as expectations and attributions of perceived fluency seem to be complex.…”

“…First, Seamon et al (1995Seamon et al ( , 1997 have shown a significant mere exposure effect by using the same kind of unfamiliar three-dimensional objects with supraliminal presentation and incidental encoding. In addition, it has been shown that pictures with a high figure-ground contrast are perceived as clearer and easier to process than low-contrast ones (Checkosky & Whitlock, 1973;Whittlesea, Jacoby, & Girard, 1990).…”

Dissociating mere exposure and repetition priming as a function of word type

“…Although this link between repetition priming and mere exposure is intuitively appealing, not least because of the opportunity it accords to accommodate the latter within an established theoretical framework (e.g., Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989;Tulving & Schacter, 1990), there have been few attempts to explore it directly. Seamon and colleagues (1995;Seamon et al, 1997) have made some progress in this respect, reporting a number of parallels between mere exposure and repetition priming. For example, Seamon et al (1997) found that study-to-test changes in retinal size and left-right orientation produced the same pattern of results using a mere exposure task, as had been previously reported with an object decision task (Cooper, Schacter, Ballesteros, & Moore, 1992).…”