Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity

Whittlesea, Bruce W. A.; Williams, Lisa D.

doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(97)00040-1

Cited by 292 publications

(383 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

352

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study, along with the results of several other recent studies (e.g., Butler et al, 2004;Whittlesea & Leboe, 2003;Whittlesea & Williams, 1998, 2001a, 2001b; see also Westerman et al, 2002), supports the notion that familiarity and preference are a function of the perceiverÕs dynamic attributional processes. That is, a stimulus may be perceived either as familiar and/or liked or as unfamiliar and/or unliked depending on the expectations and interpretations of the perceiver (Lloyd et al, 2003).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In Experiment 2, with a more perceptible but still unnoticed quality difference at the time of testing, the pre-exposure influence was particularly great when target stimuli were presented with a low-quality level. In that case, it is the surprise related to the discrepancy between what is expected of the type of stimulus and what actually happens in processing that sponsors the attribution process moderating the role of fluency in preference and recognition judgment (Whittlesea & Williams, 1998, 2001a, 2001b. In other words, this experiment shows that people are able to use the surprising fluency when the quality of an event cannot be reconciled with the actual feeling of fluency (see Whittlesea & Leboe, 2003).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…For example, Kelley and Rhodes (2002) suggest that when an irrelevant source of fluency (e.g., the presentation of an obvious supraliminal prime just before the stimulus) is noticed and appreciated by the subject, high-processing fluency may be perceived as uninformative and may be entirely attributed to this irrelevant source (i.e., to the prime at the test time and not to a previous encounter); accordingly, it will not give rise to a feeling of familiarity. Further, a recent series of works by Whittlesea and colleagues (Whittlesea & Leboe, 2003;Whittlesea & Williams, 1998, 2001a, 2001b; see also Lloyd, Westerman, & Miller, 2003;Westerman, Lloyd, & Miller, 2002) provide evidence that these attributional processes are quite sophisticated. According to their discrepancy-attribution hypothesis, enhanced fluency is attributed to prior exposure to a stimulus, and creates a feeling of familiarity, only when the individual is surprised by the ease with which he or she is able to process the item.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Willems

Linden

2006

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, picture quality between test items was manipulated to examine whether subjectsÕ expectations about the fluency normally associated with these different stimuli might influence the effects of fluency on preference or familiarity-based recognition responses. The results showed that fluency due to pre-exposure influenced responses less when objects were presented with high picture quality, suggesting that attributions of fluency to preference and familiarity are adjusted according to expectations about the different test pictures. However, this expectations influence depended on subjectsÕ awareness of these different quality levels. Indeed, imperceptible differences seemed not to induce expectations about the test item fluency. In this context, fluency due to both picture quality and pre-exposure influenced direct responses. Conversely, obvious, and noticed, differences in test picture quality did no affect responses, suggesting that expectations moderated attributions of fluency only when fluency normally associated with these different stimuli was perceptible but difficult to assess.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Willems

Linden

2006

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, people tend to judge stimuli that are f luent, or easy to process, more positively on a range of evaluative dimensions. Studies have shown that people believe f luent stimuli are more frequent (13), true (14), famous (15), likeable (16), familiar (17), and intelligent (18) than similar but less-f luent stimuli. Perhaps most relevant to investment behavior, f luency gives rise to feelings of familiarity and a positive affective response, resulting in higher judgments of preference (19,20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency

Alter

Oppenheimer

2006

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

293

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies investigated the impact of the psychological principle of fluency (that people tend to prefer easily processed information) on short-term share price movements. In both a laboratory study and two analyses of naturalistic real-world stock market data, fluently named stocks robustly outperformed stocks with disfluent names in the short term. For example, in one study, an initial investment of $1,000 yielded a profit of $112 more after 1 day of trading for a basket of fluently named shares than for a basket of disfluently named shares. These results imply that simple, cognitive approaches to modeling human behavior sometimes outperform more typical, complex alternatives.heuristic reasoning ͉ psychology ͉ stock market S hort-term f luctuations in stock prices are notoriously difficult to predict (1, 2). For decades, economists have created complicated mathematical models that ultimately fail to describe short-term share price movements (3). Indeed, the range of factors that inf luence share prices is so broad that many eminent scholars describe short-term price changes as ''random'' (3-5). Some economists have even suggested that a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard of stocks is as likely as a seasoned financial analyst to select immediately profitable stocks (3).If stock market analysis were solely the province of economists and financial analysts, one might accept their robust failure to predict short-term stock prices as an indication that stock prices are only predictable in the long term. However, as the advent of behavioral economics demonstrated in the 1970s (6, 7), psychological theory has the potential to inform economic thought. Researchers have recently begun to consider the inf luence of incidental variables on stock market investment. Consistent with the finding that people are more optimistic when in a good mood (8), markets are more likely to appreciate on sunny rather than rainy days (9, 10). Similarly, behavioral finance researchers have found a so-called ''home bias,'' in which people prefer to invest in local as opposed to international markets (11). Although investors stand to benefit from diversifying their portfolios, they might prefer the familiarity of domestic stocks, avoiding the lack of information associated with foreign markets. Inspired by the success of these psychological approaches to economic analysis, we sought to develop a straightforward alternative to complex economic models in the quest to predict short-term stock price movements.When people attempt to understand complicated information, they tend to simplify the task by relying on mental shortcuts, or heuristics (12). For example, people tend to judge stimuli that are f luent, or easy to process, more positively on a range of evaluative dimensions. Studies have shown that people believe f luent stimuli are more frequent (13), true (14), famous (15), likeable (16), familiar (17), and intelligent (18) than similar but less-f luent stimuli. Perhaps most relevant to investment behavior, f luency gives rise to feeli...

show abstract

“…Following the "conscious activation" account (e.g., Roediger & McDermott, 1995), illusory recollection appears, because people may generate the critical lures during the learning phase and later remember the characteristics of these generations as justifications that the critical lures were presented in the previous lists (Lampinen, Ryals, & Smith, 2008). Alternatively, illusory recollection may occur due to the integration of misleading retrieval cues (e.g., a voice that did not correspond to the voice that originally produced the list words; see the "imagination account"; into the recollective experience (e.g., Whittlesea, 2002;Whittlesea & Williams, 1998. Similarly, illusory recollection might occur, because the feeling of familiarity leads to a search for details in memory that corroborate the distractors (see the "familiarity plus corroboration account"; e.g., Lampinen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

False memory susceptibility in coma survivors with and without a near-death experience

Martial

Charland‐Verville

Dehon

et al. 2017

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity

Cited by 292 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency

False memory susceptibility in coma survivors with and without a near-death experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About