The Mere Exposure Effect Is Differentially Sensitive to Different Judgment Tasks

Seamon, John G.; McKenna, Patricia A.; Binder, Neil

doi:10.1006/ccog.1998.0334

Cited by 69 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern supports a mechanism in which photos made related thoughts and images come more easily to mind and, in doing so, produced positive feelings that matched the positive actions suggested in the Bgave food^claim (Reber et al, 1998;Seamon et al, 1998). But a confound clouds that interpretation.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 59%

“…Cognitive ease even automatically activates the facial muscles associated with positive affect, suggesting that ease puts a positive spin on people's judgments because it is inherently pleasing (Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001;Winkielman, Halberstadt, Fazendeiro, & Catty, 2006). In fact, people tend not to use feelings of ease as evidence for negative attributes of targets, perhaps due to the mismatch between the positive feelings and the negative focus of the judgment (Reber, Winkielman, & Schwarz, 1998;Seamon, McKenna, & Binder, 1998).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Photos lead people to believe that both true and false events have happened to them, even when those photos provide no evidence that the events occurred. Research has shown that these nonprobative photos increase false beliefs when combined with misleading suggestions and repeated exposure to the photo or target event. We propose that photos exert similar effects without those factors, and test that proposition in five experiments. In Experiment 1, people saw the names of several animals and pretended to give food to or take food from each. Then people saw the animal names again, half with a photo of the animal and half alone, and decided whether they had an experience with each. The photos led people to believe they had experiences with the animals. Moreover, Experiments 2-5 provided evidence that photos exerted these effects by making it easier to bring related thoughts and images to mind-a feeling that people mistook as evidence of genuine experience. In each experiment, photos led people to believe positive claims about the past (but not negative claims), consistent with evidence that feelings of ease selectively increase positive judgments. Experiment 4 also showed that photos (like other manipulations of ease) bias people's judgments broadly, producing false beliefs about other people's pasts. Finally, in Experiment 5, photos exerted more powerful effects when they depicted unfamiliar animals, and thus could most help bring information to mind. These findings suggest that nonprobative photos can distort the past without other factors that encourage false beliefs, and that they operate by helping related thoughts and images come to mind.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, exposure below the conscious level has been shown to positively influence awareness and liking (Bornstein, Leone and Galley 1987;Janiszewski 1993;Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc 1980;Seamon, McKenna and Binder 1998). This incidental exposure is especially important in a sponsorship context because focused attention is often given to the game, concert or event while incidental attention is given to the advertising/sponsorship messages.…”

Section: Sponsorship Recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

I Spy a Sponsor: The Effects of Sponsorship Level, Prominence, Relatedness, and Cueing on Recall Accuracy

Wakefield

Becker-Olsen

Cornwell

2007

Journal of Advertising

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines differential effects of sponsorship levels (anchor, mid-tier, low-tier) and individual exposure levels on sponsorship recall accuracy in a field study, providing validity for lab studies indicating that individuals rely on prominence and relatedness heuristics when identifying sponsors of an event. Further, we examine differences in sponsorship recall accuracy dependent upon whether the response is subject to free recall vs. cued recall. The results indicate that free (or direct) recall is generally more accurate than cued recall that rely upon reconstructive processes, but that this effect differs based on the type of sponsor in terms of the sponsor's prominence and relatedness.

show abstract

“…The subliminal mere exposure effect has been replicated many times with a variety of stimuli and appears to be robust and reliable (Bornstein, Leone, & Galley, 1987;Mandler, Nakamura, & Van Zandt, 1987;Seamon, McKenna, & Binder, 1998;Seamon et al, 1983). It is an important finding because it demonstrates that an indirect measure of responding (one that makes no reference to a prior study/exposure episode: the preference test) can be more sensitive than a direct measure (one that does refer to a prior study/exposure episode: the recognition test) to information about recent encounters with a stimulus (St. John & Shanks, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

The subliminal mere exposure effect does not generalize to structurally related stimuli.

Newell

Bright

2003

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R.F. Bornstein (1994) questioned whether subliminal mere exposure effects might generalize to structurally related stimuli, thereby providing evidence for the existence of implicit learning. Two experiments examined this claim using letter string stimuli constructed according to the rules of an artificial grammar. Experiment 1 demonstrated that brief, masked exposure to grammatical strings impaired recognition but failed to produce a mere exposure effect on novel structurally related strings seen at test. Experiment 2 replicated this result but also demonstrated that a reliable mere exposure effect could be obtained, provided the same grammatical strings were presented at test. The results suggest that the structural relationship between training and test items prevents the mere exposure effect when participants are unaware of the exposure status of stimuli, and therefore provide no evidence for the existence of implicit learning.

show abstract

The Mere Exposure Effect Is Differentially Sensitive to Different Judgment Tasks

Cited by 69 publications

References 53 publications

Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts

Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts

I Spy a Sponsor: The Effects of Sponsorship Level, Prominence, Relatedness, and Cueing on Recall Accuracy

The subliminal mere exposure effect does not generalize to structurally related stimuli.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About