User:Harb7833

The Exposure Effect
The exposure effect (also known as the mere exposure effect) is a psychological phenomenon by which people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. In social psychology, this effect is sometimes called the familiarity principle. In studies of interpersonal attraction, the more often a person is seen by someone, the more pleasing and likeable that person appears to be. The earliest known research on the exposure effect was conducted by Gustav Fechner in 1876.[1] Edward B. Titchener also documented the effect and described the "glow of warmth" one feels when in the presence of something that is familiar.[2]However, Titchner’s hypothesis was thrown out once tested and results showed that the enhancement of preferences for objects did not depend on the individual’s subjective impressions of how familiar the objects were. The rejection of Titchner’s hypothesis spurred further research and the development of current theory. Before conducting research Zajonc observed that exposure to something novel elicits a fear/avoidance response initially by all organisms. Each repeated exposure to the novel stimulus causes less fear and more of an approach tactic by the observing organism. This observation lead to the research and development of the mere exposure effect. Contents [hide] 1 Research 2 Advertising 3 Other areas 4 See also 5 References 6 External links [edit]

Research
In the 1960s, a series of laboratory experiments by Robert Zajonc demonstrated that simply exposing subjects to a familiar stimulus led them to rate it more positively than other, similar stimuli, which had not been presented. In the beginning of his research Zajonc looked at language and the frequency of words used. He found that over all of language positive words received more usage than their negative counterparts. One experiment that was conducted to test the mere exposure effect used fertile chicken eggs for the test subjects. Tones of two different frequencies were played to different groups of chicks while they were still un-hatched. Once hatched each tone was played to both groups of chicks. Each set of chicks consistently chose the tone prenatally played to it. [3] Researchers have used words, Chinese characters, paintings, pictures of faces, geometric figures, and auditory stimuli in these experiments. In one variation, subjects were shown an image on a tachistoscope for a very brief duration that could not be perceived consciously. This subliminal exposure produced the same effect,[4] though it is important to note that subliminal effects are unlikely to occur without controlled laboratory conditions.[5] Zajonc tested the mere exposure effect using Chinese characters to two groups of individuals. The individuals were then told that these symbols represented adjectives and were asked to rate whether the symbols held positive or negative connotations. The symbols that had been previously seen by the test subjects were consistently rated more positively than those unseen. After this experiment, the group with repeated exposure to certain characters reported being in better moods and felt more positive than those who did not receive repeated exposure. According to Zajonc, the exposure effect is capable of taking place without conscious cognition, and that "preferences need no inferences." This statement by Zajonc has spurred much research in the relationship between cognition and affect. [6] A meta-analysis of 208 experiments found that the exposure effect is robust and reliable, with an effect size of r=0.26. This analysis found that the effect is strongest when unfamiliar stimuli are presented briefly. Mere exposure typically reaches its maximum effect within 10-20 presentations, and some studies even show that liking may decline after a longer series of exposures. For example, people generally like a song more after they have heard it a few times, but many repetitions can reduce this preference. A delay between exposure and the measurement of liking actually tends to increase the strength of the effect. Curiously, the effect is weaker on children, and for drawings and paintings as compared to other types of stimuli.[7] One social psychology experiment showed that exposure to people we initially dislike makes us dislike them even more.[8] The exposure effect has been explained by a two-factor theory that posits that repeated exposure of a stimulus increases perceptual fluency which is the ease with which a stimulus can be processed. Perceptual fluency, in turn, increases positive affect[9] [10] Studies showed that repeated exposure increases perceptual fluency, confirming the first part of the two-factor theory.[11] Later studies observed that perceptual fluency is affectively positive, confirming the second part of the fluency account of the mere exposure effect.[12]

Advertising
Although the exposure effect appears to have a natural place in advertising, research has been mixed as to how effective it is at enhancing consumer attitudes toward particular companies and products. One study tested the mere exposure effect with banner ads seen on a computer screen. The study was conducted on college aged students who were asked to read an article on the computer while banner ads flashed at the top of the screen. The results showed that each group exposed to the "test" banner rated the ad more favorably than other ads shown less frequently or not at all. This research again bolsters the evidence for the mere exposure effect. According to one study, higher levels of media exposure are associated with lower reputations for companies, even when the exposure is mostly positive.[14] A subsequent review of the research concluded that exposure leads to ambivalence because it brings about a large number of associations, which tend to be both favorable and unfavorable.[15] Exposure is most likely to be helpful when a company or product is new and unfamiliar to consumers. An 'optimal' level of exposure to an advertisement may or may not exist. [edit]

Other areas
The exposure effect exists in most areas of human decision making. For example, many stock traders tend to invest in securities of domestic companies merely because they are more familiar with them despite the fact that international markets offer similar or even better alternatives.[16] The exposure effect also distorts the results of journal ranking surveys; those academics who previously published or completed reviews for a particular academic journal rate it dramatically higher than those who did not.[17] [edit]