scholarly journals The influence of long-term learning and stimuli frequency attenuation on mere exposure effect

Author(s):  
Ken MATSUDA ◽  
Shin ISHIKAWA ◽  
Takashi KUSUMI
Author(s):  
Sylvie Willems ◽  
Jonathan Dedonder ◽  
Martial Van der Linden

In line with Whittlesea and Price (2001) , we investigated whether the memory effect measured with an implicit memory paradigm (mere exposure effect) and an explicit recognition task depended on perceptual processing strategies, regardless of whether the task required intentional retrieval. We found that manipulation intended to prompt functional implicit-explicit dissociation no longer had a differential effect when we induced similar perceptual strategies in both tasks. Indeed, the results showed that prompting a nonanalytic strategy ensured performance above chance on both tasks. Conversely, inducing an analytic strategy drastically decreased both explicit and implicit performance. Furthermore, we noted that the nonanalytic strategy involved less extensive gaze scanning than the analytic strategy and that memory effects under this processing strategy were largely independent of gaze movement.


Author(s):  
Mikael Molet ◽  
Paul Craddock ◽  
Alana J. Osroff ◽  
Patty Li ◽  
Tessa L. Livingston ◽  
...  

Abstract. The mere exposure effect (MEE) is defined as repeated exposures to a stimulus enhancing affective evaluations of that stimulus ( Zajonc, 1968 ). The three prominent explanations of the MEE are Zajonc's “neophobia” account, the uncertainty reduction account, and the perceptual fluency approach. Zajonc's “neophobia” account posits that people have an inherent low level of fear of novel objects and exposure to the objects partially extinguishes this novelty-based fear. The uncertainty reduction account asserts that people find uncertainty aversive and habituation reduces uncertainty. The fluency account postulates that people “like” representations of things with which they are fluent. In four experiments, we induced positive and negative moods before or after target exposures. In addition to assessing the MEE in each condition, we assessed the mood induction. The central hypothesis assessed in this series was that there would be an interaction between mood and the MEE. Although the three accounts of the MEE generated divergent predictions, none of the accounts were well supported by the data. Tests for mood induction demonstrated the efficacy of the induction procedures and the MEE was consistently observed, but Bayesian analysis indicated that at least in the present preparation mood had no effect on the MEE.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maartje M. A. de Graaf ◽  
Somaya Ben Allouch ◽  
Jan A. G. M. van Dijk

Abstract This study aims to contribute to emerging human-robot interaction research by adding longitudinal findings to a limited number of long-term social robotics home studies. We placed 70 robots in users’ homes for a period of up to six months, and used questionnaires and interviews to collect data at six points during this period. Results indicate that users’ evaluations of the robot dropped initially, but later rose after the robot had been used for a longer period of time. This is congruent with the so-called mere-exposure effect, which shows an increasing positive evaluation of a novel stimulus once people become familiar with it. Before adoption, users focus on control beliefs showing that previous experiences with robots or other technologies allows to create a mental image of what having and using a robot in the home would entail. After adoption, users focus on utilitarian and hedonic attitudes showing that especially usefulness, social presence, enjoyment and attractiveness are important factors for long-term acceptance.


Leonardo ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bence Nanay

It has been argued that some recent experimental findings about the mere exposure effect can be used to argue for aesthetic antirealism: the view that there is no fact of the matter about aesthetic value. The aim of this article is to assess this argument and point out that this strategy, as it stands, does not work. But we may still be able to use experimental findings about the mere exposure effect in order to engage with the aesthetic realism/antirealism debate. However, this argument would need to proceed very differently and would only support a much more modest version of aesthetic antirealism.


2005 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 281-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Weeks ◽  
Justin G. Longenecker ◽  
Joseph A. McKinney ◽  
Carlos W. Moore

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e77726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel de Zilva ◽  
Luke Vu ◽  
Ben R. Newell ◽  
Joel Pearson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document