A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1992,
Vol. 63, No. 4, 545-552Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-3514/92/S3.00
Stimulus Recognition and the Mere Exposure Effect
Robert
F.
Bornstein and Paul R. DAgostino
Gettysburg College
A meta-analysis of research on Zajonc's (1968) mere exposure effect indicated that stimuli per-
ceived without awareness produce substantially larger exposure effects than do stimuli that are
consciously perceived (Bornstein,
1989a).
However, this
finding
has not been tested directly in the
laboratory. Two experiments were conducted comparing the magnitude of the exposure effect
produced by S-ms
(i.e.,
subliminal) stimuli and stimuli presented for longer durations
(i.e.,
500 ms).
In both experiments, 5-ms stimuli produced significantly larger mere exposure effects than did
500-ms
stimuli.
These results were obtained for polygon (Experiment
1),
Welsh
figure
(Experiment
2),
and photograph stimuli (Experiments
1
and 2). Implications of these findings for theoretical
models of the mere exposure effect are discussed.
Since the publication of Zajonc's
(1968)
monograph describ-
ing the
mere exposure effect
(i.e.,
the observation that repeated,
unreinforced exposure is sufficient to enhance attitude toward
a stimulus), there have been more than 200 published experi-
ments investigating the exposure-affect relationship (Born-
stein, 1989a). The exposure effect has proven to be a robust,
reliable phenomenon, yielding strong results for a variety of
stimuli
(e.g.,
polygons, drawings, photographs, nonsense words,
and idiographs) and a variety of rating procedures
(e.g.,
liking
ratings, pleasantness ratings, and forced-choice preference
judgments). Furthermore, researchers have used paradigms
and procedures from exposure effects research to investigate a
wide variety of psychological phenomena, including advertis-
ing effects (Sawyer, 1981), social perceptions and behaviors
(Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973), stereotypes and prejudice
(Ball
&
Cantor, 1974), food preferences (Pliner, 1982), environ-
mental preferences (Herzog, Kaplan, & Kaplan, 1976), aes-
thetic
judgments
(Berlyne,
1974),
verbal learning (Zajonc, Mar-
kus,
& Wilson, 1974), implicit memory (Gordon & Holyoak,
1983),
and attitude formation (Grush, 1976).
A number of experiments have demonstrated that typical
mere exposure effects can be obtained by stimuli that are nei-
ther recalled nor recognized by subjects (Bonanno
&
Stillings,
1986;
Bornstein, Leone, & Galley, 1987; Kunst-Wilson & Za-
jonc,
1980; Mandler, Nakamura, & Van Zandt,
1987;
Seamon,
Brody, & KaufT, 1983a,
1983b;
Seamon, Marsh,
&
Brody,
1984).
These findings suggest that awareness of stimulus content is
not required for the production of mere exposure effects. Thus,
Portions of this article were presented at the 98th Annual Conven-
tion of the American Psychological Association, Boston, August 13,
1990.
This research
was
supported by an Institutional Self-Renewal grant
from Gettysburg College to Robert
F.
Bornstein and Paul R. DAgos-
tino.
We
thank Larry
Jacoby,
Richard Moreland, and several anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Rob-
ert
F.
Bornstein, Department of Psychology, Gettysburg
College,
Get-
tysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.
although it
is
clear that some type of learning process underlies
the exposure effect (Gordon
&
Horyoak,
1983;
Harrison, 1977),
this learning process apparently can take place entirely outside
of conscious awareness, involving implicit rather than explicit
knowledge about a stimulus.
Not only do stimuli perceived without awareness produce
robust exposure effects, but a meta-analysis of research on the
exposure effect indicated that mere exposure effects produced
by stimuli that are not recognized at better-than-chance accu-
racy are substantially larger than mere exposure effects pro-
duced by clearly recognized stimuli. Bornstein (1989a) used
meta-analytic techniques to compare the magnitude of attitude
enhancement in mere exposure studies involving subliminal
stimuli and studies using stimuli presented for longer exposure
durations. A mean effect size
r
of .528 was found for subliminal
stimuli, whereas the mean effect size for stimuli presented for
longer exposure durations was .140. These data indicate that
subliminal mere exposure effects are considerably stronger
than typical mere exposure effects and suggest that awareness
of stimulus content may somehow inhibit the exposure effect.
A
subsequent meta-analysis of mere exposure effects research fur-
ther demonstrated that across all mere exposure experiments
there is an inverse relationship between stimulus recognition
accuracy and the magnitude of the exposure effect (Bornstein,
1989b).
Bornstein's (1989a, 1989b) meta-analytic findings regarding
the inverse relationship of stimulus recognition accuracy to the
magnitude of the mere exposure effect
have
not been replicated
in the laboratory. Further examination of this issue
is
important
for
two
reasons.
First, this
finding
has implications for theoreti-
cal models of the exposure effect. Extant models of the expo-
sure effect (i.e., the two-factor, opponent-process, and attitude
formation models) cannot easily accommodate this pattern of
results (see Harrison, 1977; Stang, 1974b). Thus, if laboratory
studies confirm that stimuli perceived without awareness pro-
duce significantly stronger mere exposure effects than do stim-
uli that are clearly recognized, extant models of the exposure
effect may need to be revised or replaced.
Second, this issue
has
important implications for
the
study
of
545
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.