1
WEEK 1: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORE
ARTICLES
Bornstein, Robert F., and Paul R. D'agostino. (1992) "Stimulus recognition and the mere
exposure effect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 545.
Mere Exposure Effect: Phenomenon where repeated exposure to a stimulus increases
liking for that stimulus, even when the exposures are brief or occur without conscious
awareness. It has been observed for a wide range of stimuli, including faces, shapes, and words.
The authors examine whether the mere exposure effect depends on stimulus recognition.
Zajonc’s Original Theory
● Repetition increases perceptual fluency → leads to positive affect.
● Does not require conscious recognition.
Bornstein’s Two-Factor Theory
Mere exposure involves two processes:
1. Positive habituation (initial exposures → increased fluency → liking)
2. Boredom/tedium at high exposure levels (decreases liking)
Does recognition mediate the exposure effect?
The authors aim to test:
Main Hypotheses:
H1: Mere exposure increases liking independently of recognition.
H2: Recognition should not increase at very short exposures (e.g., 5 ms).
H3: When exposure duration is longer (e.g., 500 ms), recognition increases, but the relationship
with liking should differ depending on stimulus type.
H4: Stimulus type matters: complex/heterogeneous stimuli (photos) show different recognition
patterns vs. simple/homogeneous ones (polygons).
Experiment 1
Stimuli Used
● Photographs (complex)
● Polygons (simple, abstract)
, 2
Exposure Durations
● 5 ms (subliminal)
● 500 ms (supraliminal)
Procedure
Participants were exposed to stimuli 1, 5, 10, or 20 times, then:
1. Rated their liking
2. Rated recognition
Liking Results
● Liking increased with exposure frequency for all stimuli at both durations.
● The mere exposure effect was strongest under 5 ms exposure, supporting the
“subliminal fluency” idea.
● However, the effect also occurred at 500 ms, contradicting theories that recognition
eliminates exposure effects.
Exposure → liking works even when people consciously recognize stimuli.
Recognition Results
● 5 ms exposures:
○ Very low recognition across all frequency levels → stimuli were not consciously
processed.
● 500 ms exposures:
○ Recognition increased with exposure frequency for polygons, but not for
photographs.
○ Photographs showed weaker recognition because they were more heterogeneous
→ harder to remember specific ones.
Interpretation: Recognition patterns depend on stimulus complexity, not on liking.
Experiment 2
Goal: test whether results generalize to:
● Another type of stimuli (Welsh figures)
● With similar exposure durations and frequency manipulations.
Results
● Replicated Experiment 1:
, 3
○ Liking increased with exposure frequency.
○ Recognition increased mainly for simpler stimuli.
● The dissociation between recognition and liking was again observed.
Conclusion from Experiment 2:
Recognition and affective responses follow separate processes.
Discussion & Conclusions
1. The mere exposure effect does not depend on recognition.
○ Liking increases even when recognition is absent (5 ms exposures).
○ Liking continues to increase even when recognition rises (500 ms for polygons).
2. Recognition and liking follow different patterns.
○ Recognition increases mainly for simple/homogeneous stimuli.
○ Liking increases for all stimuli.
3. Exposure effects are robust.
○ Occur for different stimuli (polygons, photos, Welsh figures).
○ Occur at different exposure durations.
4. Supports a fluency-based explanation of mere exposure:
○ Repetition → increased perceptual fluency → positive affect.
○ This does not require conscious memory.
5. Challenges models claiming exposure effects are purely unconscious.
Why This Article Matters in the Consumer Behavior Context
● Consumers prefer logos, brands, faces, songs, and ads simply because they have
seen them before.
● Repetition builds warmth and trust, even without recall.
● Helps explain:
○ brand recognition advantage
○ why high-frequency advertising works
○ why subtle product placement is effective
Atalay, A. Selin, H. Onur Bodur, and Dina Rasolofoarison (2012), "Shining in the center:
Central gaze cascade effect on product choice." Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4),
848-866.
Goal: To explain why consumers choose the middle option in a horizontal product array.
The article tests whether this is due to:
1. Visual attention
, 4
2. Brand inferences (e.g., “middle = better”)
3. Memory-based attention (recall)
It introduces a new mechanism: the central gaze cascade effect.
Horizontal Centrality Effect: People choose the center option more often than left or right.
Central Fixation Bias: At the start of viewing, people naturally look at the center of any display.
Gaze Cascade Effect: Right before choosing, gaze accelerates toward the chosen option.
Central Gaze Cascade Effect: In multi-option arrays, gaze increasingly shifts toward the central
option in the final seconds before choice—even before knowing which item will be chosen.
Visual Attention (Eye Tracking): Measured as fixation frequency and fixation duration.
Memory-Based Attention Measures: Self-reported attention and recall. These do not match
real visual attention.
Results (All Studies)
Study 1A (Eye-tracking, centered planogram)
● Center items got more fixations and longer viewing time.
● Center items were chosen more (45% vs 27%).
● Visual attention mediated the centrality → choice effect.
● Brand inferences and self-reported attention did not mediate.
● Initial central looking did not predict choice.
● Final central fixations did → central gaze cascade effect.
Study 1B (Planogram shifted left or right)
● Effect still held even when the array wasn’t in the physical screen center.
● Center of the product array still got more attention and more choices.
● Central gaze cascade effect replicated.
Study 2 (Real shelf with physical products)
● Even when the category was not in the middle of the shelf,
the center item within the category was chosen more.
● Shows the effect is robust and real-world applicable.
Main Conclusions
WEEK 1: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORE
ARTICLES
Bornstein, Robert F., and Paul R. D'agostino. (1992) "Stimulus recognition and the mere
exposure effect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 545.
Mere Exposure Effect: Phenomenon where repeated exposure to a stimulus increases
liking for that stimulus, even when the exposures are brief or occur without conscious
awareness. It has been observed for a wide range of stimuli, including faces, shapes, and words.
The authors examine whether the mere exposure effect depends on stimulus recognition.
Zajonc’s Original Theory
● Repetition increases perceptual fluency → leads to positive affect.
● Does not require conscious recognition.
Bornstein’s Two-Factor Theory
Mere exposure involves two processes:
1. Positive habituation (initial exposures → increased fluency → liking)
2. Boredom/tedium at high exposure levels (decreases liking)
Does recognition mediate the exposure effect?
The authors aim to test:
Main Hypotheses:
H1: Mere exposure increases liking independently of recognition.
H2: Recognition should not increase at very short exposures (e.g., 5 ms).
H3: When exposure duration is longer (e.g., 500 ms), recognition increases, but the relationship
with liking should differ depending on stimulus type.
H4: Stimulus type matters: complex/heterogeneous stimuli (photos) show different recognition
patterns vs. simple/homogeneous ones (polygons).
Experiment 1
Stimuli Used
● Photographs (complex)
● Polygons (simple, abstract)
, 2
Exposure Durations
● 5 ms (subliminal)
● 500 ms (supraliminal)
Procedure
Participants were exposed to stimuli 1, 5, 10, or 20 times, then:
1. Rated their liking
2. Rated recognition
Liking Results
● Liking increased with exposure frequency for all stimuli at both durations.
● The mere exposure effect was strongest under 5 ms exposure, supporting the
“subliminal fluency” idea.
● However, the effect also occurred at 500 ms, contradicting theories that recognition
eliminates exposure effects.
Exposure → liking works even when people consciously recognize stimuli.
Recognition Results
● 5 ms exposures:
○ Very low recognition across all frequency levels → stimuli were not consciously
processed.
● 500 ms exposures:
○ Recognition increased with exposure frequency for polygons, but not for
photographs.
○ Photographs showed weaker recognition because they were more heterogeneous
→ harder to remember specific ones.
Interpretation: Recognition patterns depend on stimulus complexity, not on liking.
Experiment 2
Goal: test whether results generalize to:
● Another type of stimuli (Welsh figures)
● With similar exposure durations and frequency manipulations.
Results
● Replicated Experiment 1:
, 3
○ Liking increased with exposure frequency.
○ Recognition increased mainly for simpler stimuli.
● The dissociation between recognition and liking was again observed.
Conclusion from Experiment 2:
Recognition and affective responses follow separate processes.
Discussion & Conclusions
1. The mere exposure effect does not depend on recognition.
○ Liking increases even when recognition is absent (5 ms exposures).
○ Liking continues to increase even when recognition rises (500 ms for polygons).
2. Recognition and liking follow different patterns.
○ Recognition increases mainly for simple/homogeneous stimuli.
○ Liking increases for all stimuli.
3. Exposure effects are robust.
○ Occur for different stimuli (polygons, photos, Welsh figures).
○ Occur at different exposure durations.
4. Supports a fluency-based explanation of mere exposure:
○ Repetition → increased perceptual fluency → positive affect.
○ This does not require conscious memory.
5. Challenges models claiming exposure effects are purely unconscious.
Why This Article Matters in the Consumer Behavior Context
● Consumers prefer logos, brands, faces, songs, and ads simply because they have
seen them before.
● Repetition builds warmth and trust, even without recall.
● Helps explain:
○ brand recognition advantage
○ why high-frequency advertising works
○ why subtle product placement is effective
Atalay, A. Selin, H. Onur Bodur, and Dina Rasolofoarison (2012), "Shining in the center:
Central gaze cascade effect on product choice." Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4),
848-866.
Goal: To explain why consumers choose the middle option in a horizontal product array.
The article tests whether this is due to:
1. Visual attention
, 4
2. Brand inferences (e.g., “middle = better”)
3. Memory-based attention (recall)
It introduces a new mechanism: the central gaze cascade effect.
Horizontal Centrality Effect: People choose the center option more often than left or right.
Central Fixation Bias: At the start of viewing, people naturally look at the center of any display.
Gaze Cascade Effect: Right before choosing, gaze accelerates toward the chosen option.
Central Gaze Cascade Effect: In multi-option arrays, gaze increasingly shifts toward the central
option in the final seconds before choice—even before knowing which item will be chosen.
Visual Attention (Eye Tracking): Measured as fixation frequency and fixation duration.
Memory-Based Attention Measures: Self-reported attention and recall. These do not match
real visual attention.
Results (All Studies)
Study 1A (Eye-tracking, centered planogram)
● Center items got more fixations and longer viewing time.
● Center items were chosen more (45% vs 27%).
● Visual attention mediated the centrality → choice effect.
● Brand inferences and self-reported attention did not mediate.
● Initial central looking did not predict choice.
● Final central fixations did → central gaze cascade effect.
Study 1B (Planogram shifted left or right)
● Effect still held even when the array wasn’t in the physical screen center.
● Center of the product array still got more attention and more choices.
● Central gaze cascade effect replicated.
Study 2 (Real shelf with physical products)
● Even when the category was not in the middle of the shelf,
the center item within the category was chosen more.
● Shows the effect is robust and real-world applicable.
Main Conclusions
