The mere exposure effect is a cognitive bias: a systematic tilt in judgment toward whatever feels familiar. Individuals show a preference for things they’re more familiar with.
Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking and familiarity, even without conscious recognition. Essentially, the more we encounter something, the more we tend to prefer it, based on familiarity alone.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated Exposure: Liking rises with how often people see a stimulus, most steeply across the first few exposures before leveling off.
- Zajonc’s Studies: Robert Zajonc built the effect on three lines of evidence: word frequency and word evaluation, interpersonal contact and attraction, and musical familiarity and liking.
- Moderating Factors: Initial familiarity, discriminability and complexity all shape how strongly the effect takes hold.
- Wide Applications: The effect appears in art, architecture and advertising, wherever repeated contact occurs.
- Not Unlimited: Liking does not rise forever. A 2017 meta-analysis of 268 curves found the relationship is an inverted-U, peaking then declining with over-exposure.
What Is the Mere Exposure Effect? History and Discovery
The mere exposure effect finds that people show an increased preference or liking for a stimulus the more that they are exposed to that stimulus.
Definition
The effect is most likely to occur when people have no pre-existing negative attitude toward the stimulus. It is strongest when people are not even aware the stimulus was shown.
Zajonc suggests that the relationship between exposure and liking follows a positive, decelerating curve. The first few exposures matter most. Later ones add progressively less (Zajonc, 1968).
The hypothesis allows for other bases of liking that do not involve repetition. Exposure-driven liking can also be offset by other factors, and it does not require or rule out other familiarity effects.
This matters theoretically because it separates liking from knowing. Preference can grow even when someone cannot recall having encountered the stimulus before, challenging the idea that people must judge a thing before they can like it.
History and Discovery
Robert Zajonc was the first to formalize the mere exposure effect, in a landmark 1968 paper. Related findings had appeared in scattered form decades earlier.
According to Zajonc’s mere exposure hypothesis, repeated exposure to a stimulus is sufficient on its own to enhance a person’s attitude toward it. Zajonc termed the phenomenon the “mere” exposure effect because the exposure can involve any conditions that simply make a stimulus perceptible to someone.
This drew together several previously separate findings. These included the word-frequency/pleasantness correlation, the tendency of physical proximity to breed friendship, and the way initially disliked art and music grew on people with exposure.
Reframing familiarity as an active ingredient in preference, rather than a by-product of it, set the research agenda for the following decades.
Zajonc’s Evidence for the Mere Exposure Effect
To support his hypothesis, Zajonc discussed three types of supporting studies (1968).
These studies spanned three areas: word frequency and evaluation, interpersonal contact and attraction, and musical familiarity and liking (Harrison, 1977).
- Aim: to test whether varying only the frequency of exposure to an initially neutral stimulus, with everything else held constant, would increase liking for it.
- Method: English-speaking participants viewed unfamiliar nonsense words, ideographs and photographs of men’s faces, each shown 0, 1, 2, 5, 10 or 25 times. Zajonc also compared the rated favorability of 154 antonym pairs against how often each word was used.
- Results: Liking rose with frequency along a positive, decelerating curve for every stimulus type. The higher-frequency member of each antonym pair was also rated more favorable, over 80% of the time.
- Conclusion: frequency of exposure alone is enough to enhance attitudes toward a stimulus, since nothing but exposure varied and the stimuli began as neutral.
The design’s strength is its experimental control. But the word-frequency evidence is correlational, admitting an alternative reading: perhaps people simply use pleasant words more often, rather than frequent use causing the liking.
Word Frequency and Word Evaluation
Studies have found correlations between word frequency (typically obtained from Thorndike-Lorge’s (1944) count) and how people view the word’s connotation.
These experimental studies have used techniques such as varying the number of times words are shown to participants and then assessing the participant’s attitudinal reactions.
Early studies of frequency and meaning found that so-called “dirty words” had higher recognition thresholds than neutral words (McGinnies, 1949).
Howes and Solomon (1950, 1951) showed more generally that infrequent words have higher recognition thresholds than frequent ones. They explained McGinnies’s finding this way: “dirty words” simply appear less often in print (Harrison, 1977).
However, R.C. Johnson, Thomson, and Frincke (1960) were the first to raise the possibility of a relationship between word frequency and meaning.
The researchers found that more frequent words tended to have more favorable connotations than less frequently used words.
In 26 of 30 word pairs, the high-frequency member was rated more positively than the less frequent one. Nonsense words built from familiar English letter combinations were rated the same way.
Zajonc (1968) tested this further, asking students to rank which of 154 antonym pairs sounded more favorable. The high-frequency member won over 80% of the time.
The pattern held beyond antonyms. Gough’s (1955) most favorable adjectives were also the more frequent ones, and the same was true for personality-descriptive words generally (Anderson, 1968; Zajonc, 1968; Harrison, 1977).
Zajonc found similar effects with letters and numbers: more frequent, lower numbers were rated more favorably than rarer, higher ones.
These correlational studies do not settle the question, though. Liking a word could make people use it more often, rather than frequent use causing the liking.
The “Pollyanna hypothesis” offers one explanation. People tend to talk about pleasant things more than unpleasant ones. This structures their conceptual world in a positive way (Boutcher and Osgood, 1969; Matlin and Stang, 1976; Osgood, 1964; Harrison, 1977).
Three strands of evidence connect word frequency to word evaluation:
- Recognition thresholds: unpleasant “dirty” words needed longer exposure to be recognized. This was mainly because they simply appeared less often in print (McGinnies, 1949; Howes & Solomon, 1950, 1951).
- Frequency predicts favorability: in 26 of 30 antonym pairs, and in over 80% of Zajonc’s 154 antonym pairs, the more frequent word was rated more favorable.
- The Pollyanna hypothesis: an alternative explanation, that people simply talk about pleasant things more often, so pleasantness may drive frequency rather than the reverse.
Interpersonal Contact and Interpersonal Attraction
Zajonc also discussed two earlier lines of research linking exposure to interpersonal attraction.
First, studies of proximity and friendship show a clear pattern. People who live or work close to each other, and so meet repeatedly, often become friends (Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950; Priest & Sawyer, 1967; Segal, 1974).
Second, studies of race relations suggest interracial contact can reduce prejudice. Factors such as status inequality, competition, and cultural customs can limit this effect, though (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969; Deutsch and Collins, 1951; Pettigrew, 1971).
The pattern is general. Studies have shown a correlation between familiarity and liking, for both individuals and groups.
Harrison (1969) studied liking ratings of 200 public figures and 40 fabricated individuals; the ratings correlated strongly with each person’s exposure in printed media. Stang (1975a) found a similar pattern for U.S. presidents: name recognition in archival print sources tracked closely with how favorably they were rated.
Other experiments tested this attraction effect directly. Stang (1974a) posted 0, 20, or 200 campaign posters urging students to elect a fictitious candidate as editor of a student publication.
Students who had seen the posters were more likely to vote for the publicized candidate. The effect held for pictures too.
In a separate study, Wilson and Nakajo (1965) found that showing a person’s picture more often produced steadily more favorable ratings of personality, social appeal, and emotional stability. This was not limited to posters.
To corroborate this evidence, Zajonc (1968) used pictures of men’s graduation portraits and showed them either 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, or 25 times. Those who saw the graduation portraits tended to rate the person more favorably “as a person” (Harrison, 1977).
Baum and Nickels (1975), extending Zajonc’s original study, found that these effects also applied to women and racial minorities.
Moreland and Beach (1992) took this into the real world.
- Aim: to test whether mere exposure to a real person, with no interaction at all, produces genuine interpersonal attraction.
- Method: Four similar-looking women acted as confederates in a university lecture across a semester, attending 0, 5, 10 or 15 sessions without speaking to a student. At term’s end, students rated each woman’s attractiveness, familiarity and similarity to themselves from photographs.
- Results: Ratings rose with attendance. The confederate seen 15 times was rated most attractive, most familiar and most similar; the one never seen was rated lowest.
- Conclusion: mere exposure to a person, without any interaction, increases liking, perceived attractiveness and even felt similarity.
A modern field test makes the mechanism explicit. Back, Schmukle and Egloff (2008) randomly assigned students to seats on the first day of a class, so some pairs were simply seen more often than others by chance alone. That bare seating exposure predicted who had become friends a year later.
Musical Selection Familiarity and Liking
Musical selections tell a different story: many studies show that low- and intermediate-frequency stimuli tend to be the best-liked (Harrison, 1977).
Several studies show that the more people hear unfamiliar music, the more positively they rate it (Bornstein and Craver-Lemley, 2017).
There is a long lineage of studies demonstrating the mere exposure effect in music. One of the earliest, Meyer (1903), found repeated plays of a novel composition raised liking four times more often than they lowered it.
Other evidence contradicts the mere exposure effect. Jakobovits (1966) used music sales as a proxy for liking. As songs were aired more frequently on the radio, their sales eventually fell.
Sales could have dwindled for other reasons, such as fans simply having already bought the song. More compellingly, Bush and Pease (1968) found that playing a song 30 times in a row polarized ratings.
More people shifted negative than positive. Skaife (1967) added that exposure can raise or lower liking, depending on the piece itself (Harrison, 1977).
Other Factors Leading to Increased Likeability
Although there are many studies presenting what appear to be mere exposure effects, controversy has arisen from their reproducibility. Harrison (1977) presents a number of variables that may lead to some studies yielding mere exposure effects while others have not.
He argues that so-called stimulus variables, presentation variables, and measurement variables interact with exposure to determine liking.
Whether or not an exposure effect is observed can partly depend on the properties of the stimuli that have been selected.
Stimulus variables can include initial or preexposure familiarity, initial or pre-exposure meaning, discriminability, recognizability, and complexity (Harrison, 1977).
Initial Familiarity
If a stimulus is already familiar, more exposure is unlikely to improve a person’s attitude toward it. Washburn et al. (1927), for example, found that exposure effects shrank or disappeared when the material was already familiar rather than new.
Maslow (1937) found the same pattern. Exposure changed attitudes toward novel paintings and names, but not toward objects that were already familiar (Harrison, 1977).
Initial Meaning
Hypotheses also suggest that the mere exposure effect depends on the stimulus’s meaning before people are exposed to it. These hypotheses assume the exposure effect changes a stimulus’s meaning, not how a person evaluates it (Grush, 1976; Jakobovits, 1968; Harrison, 1977).
Two hypotheses disagree on how.
The semantic satiation hypothesis holds that repetition drains a stimulus of meaning. Initially negative stimuli become less negative with exposure; initially positive stimuli become less pleasing.
The two predictions conflict directly. The semantic generation interpretation argues the opposite: exposure increases meaning over time. Initially positive stimuli grow more positive with continued exposure, while initially disliked stimuli grow more negative (Harrison, 1977).
Discriminability
Zajonc, Shaver, Tavris, and Van Kreveld (1972) noted that paintings shown once before being rated were better-liked than novel paintings.
However, they also found that ratings decreased as exposure further increased.
A second experiment found that exposure shaped liking for both similar and dissimilar stimuli. Maximum liking took more exposures to reach for the less-discriminable stimuli (Harrison, 1977).
Recognizability
Researchers have argued for and against recognizability as a cause of the mere exposure effect.
For example, Moreland (1975) had subjects rate stimuli according to how recognizable and familiar stimuli were. Repetition led to an increase in recognition, greater confidence in recognition judgments, greater subjective familiarity, and greater liking.
Moreland and Zajonc (1977) tested this directly.
- Aim: to test whether objective exposure frequency, or the subjective feeling of familiarity, drives the rise in liking.
- Method: Participants viewed Japanese ideographs shown 0, 1, 3, 9, or 27 times. They then rated each one for liking and, separately, for how confident they were that they had seen it before.
- Results: when both measures were entered together as predictors of liking, objective exposure frequency still predicted liking. Subjective recognition did not.
- Conclusion: repetition raises liking through a route that does not depend on feeling familiar.
Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc (1980) went further. They removed conscious recognition altogether.
- Aim: to test whether mere exposure can raise liking even when people cannot consciously tell they have seen a stimulus before.
- Method: Participants viewed irregular geometric shapes flashed for about one millisecond each, too briefly to identify consciously. Later they saw pairs, one exposed shape and one new, and said which one they recognized and, separately, which one they preferred.
- Results: Recognition was at chance, about 50%: participants could not tell which shapes they had seen. Preference was not chance, however; they chose the previously exposed shape on roughly 60% of trials.
- Conclusion: the mere exposure effect does not need explicit memory. It can form and show itself without any conscious identification of the stimulus at all.
Complexity
Reducing the complexity of a stimulus can also lower the likelihood of an exposure effect.
Skaife (1967) found the same pattern in music: repeating a simple tune produces less favorable reactions, while repeating a complex song can still yield exposure effects.
Berlyne, meanwhile, found greater declines over exposure when the stimuli were simple rather than complex.
Context
The ways in which stimuli are presented may also influence exposure effects.
Exposure never happens in a vacuum. The feelings a situation or context produces can become increasingly linked to the stimulus as exposure continues.
An unpleasant context should make exposure decrease liking; a pleasant one should make it increase (Burgess and Sales, 1971).
M. A. Johnson (1973) tested this directly. Participants sat on hard stools in a room that smelled of formaldehyde, heated to 35°C, and were treated harshly throughout. Exposure effects still emerged, just as strong as in a condition with none of these unpleasant conditions.
In another study, Saegert et al. (1973) had women move from cubicle to cubicle and encountered each other varying numbers of times. The exposure led to increased interpersonal attraction both in conditions where subjects tested pleasant solutions and in ones where they sampled bitter concoctions.
Context studies go beyond mere exposure alone.
Zajonc et al. (1974) showed participants photos of people labelled either “criminals” or “contributors” (people with notable scholarly or scientific achievements).
When the label was reinforced, for instance by also showing a photo of the crime, repeated exposure pulled ratings apart: contributors grew more likeable, criminals less so. When the label was not reinforced, both groups grew more likeable over time (Harrison, 1969).
Overall, these studies on context show that mere exposure and associative learning effects are independent and additive.
Exposure to a negative context can lead to disliking, but the mere exposure effect serves to inhibit this decline (Harrison, 1969).
Presentation Sequence
A stimulus exposed within a “heterogeneous” sequence, one where other stimuli are interspersed, is more likely to produce an exposure effect. A “homogeneous,” uninterrupted repetition of the same stimulus is less effective.
Berlyne (1970) was among the first to show experimentally that high-frequency stimuli declined in judged pleasantness more rapidly when presented in homogeneous sequences (Harrison, 1969).
Critical Evaluation
The mere exposure effect is one of the best-replicated findings in social psychology. It holds across stimulus types, cultures and sensory modalities, and even below conscious awareness.
Bornstein’s (1989) synthesis of roughly 200 experiments confirmed it was real and reliable. The question since has not been whether it exists. It is how the effect works, and how far repetition can be pushed before it fails.
- Aim: to quantify the overall size of the mere exposure effect across the field’s first two decades, and identify which stimulus and procedural variables moderate it.
- Method: Bornstein meta-analysed roughly 200 experiments published between 1968 and 1987, pooling their effect sizes. He also coded moderators including stimulus complexity, exposure duration, number of exposures, and whether the stimulus could be recognized.
- Results: The exposure-liking relationship was robust overall, and effects were larger for briefly or subliminally presented stimuli than for clearly seen ones. They were also larger for complex than simple stimuli, and for novel than already-familiar ones.
- Conclusion: Mere exposure is a genuine, substantial phenomenon, not a laboratory artefact. The strongest effects appeared for brief or subliminal exposure, pointing to a mechanism that does not require conscious recognition.
As the first comprehensive synthesis, this analysis put the effect’s reliability beyond reasonable doubt, though it inherited the primary studies’ own limitations, including possible publication bias.
How Mere Exposure Works: Three Explanations
Psychologists broadly agree the effect is real. They disagree on why it happens. Three accounts compete, and they are not mutually exclusive:
- Perceptual Fluency: repetition makes a stimulus easier to process, and people mistake that ease for liking.
- Affective Primacy: liking is a partly independent system that can form preferences without any conscious judgement at all.
- Conditioning: each harmless repeat encounter signals safety, and that safety signal becomes attached to the stimulus.
Perceptual Fluency and Misattribution
Each time we encounter a stimulus, it becomes easier and faster to process. That growing ease is called perceptual fluency.
That fluency produces a faint, positive feeling with no obvious source. Because people cannot trace it back to fluency, they misattribute it to the stimulus: this feels good, so I must like it.
The account explains a pattern that otherwise looks strange. Exposure effects are often strongest when people cannot recognize the stimulus at all.
With no memory of a prior encounter to explain the good feeling away, people attribute that feeling to liking instead. That is exactly what Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc’s (1980) subliminal-shape result and Bornstein’s (1989) meta-analysis both found.
- Aim: to test whether subliminal repeated exposure creates liking only for the repeated stimulus, or a broader positive mood that spreads to other things.
- Method: Participants viewed ideographs flashed for just 5 milliseconds, too briefly to consciously recognize. One group saw 25 different images once each; another saw just 5 images five times each, then reported their mood and rated new, unrelated images.
- Results: Repeating a small set of subliminal images lifted people’s general mood. Even unrelated, never-seen images were then rated more positively.
- Conclusion: subliminal exposure creates a diffuse, free-floating positive feeling, not liking narrowly tied to the exact stimulus repeated.
This builds on the fluency-misattribution account (Bornstein & D’Agostino, 1992): recognition-free exposure does not just tag a stimulus as liked, it can color mood and judgment more broadly.
Affective Primacy
Zajonc drew a bolder conclusion from the same findings. He argued that affect is a partly independent system able to generate preference before any cognitive appraisal (Zajonc, 1980).
This view treats liking as a direct emotional response tuned by repetition, not a judgement about fluency at all. Zajonc put it in four words: “preferences need no inferences.” The claim launched a long debate over whether emotion can precede thought.
Conditioning and Uncertainty Reduction
A third account treats repeated exposure as a small learning experience. Each encounter with a new stimulus carries a little uncertainty. An encounter that passes without harm signals safety.
Zajonc (2001) framed this as a form of classical conditioning, in which the absence of anything bad happening acts as the reinforcing event. This explains why the effect is strongest for genuinely new stimuli, where uncertainty is highest. It fades once a stimulus is already familiar.
No single account yet explains every known moderator of the effect (Montoya et al., 2017).
Contemporary Research
The most important recent evidence overturns Zajonc’s original picture.
- Aim: Montoya, Horton, Vevea, Citkowicz and Lauber (2017) set out to pin down the exact shape of the exposure-liking curve.
- Method: The team meta-analysed 268 curve estimates from 81 articles. They fitted a straight-line and a curved component to see whether the relationship bent downward at higher exposure.
- Results: The data fit a rising slope combined with a downward curve, the signature of an inverted-U: liking rose with exposure, peaked, then declined. This pattern held for visual stimuli shown very briefly or for over a minute.
- Conclusion: the mere exposure effect is real, but it is fundamentally an inverted-U rather than an ever-rising curve. Repetition helps, up to a point, and then it hurts.
Illustrative Examples
Exposure to New Types of Art
When the paintings of impressionists, such as Claude Monet, were first displayed, they received scathing reviews. Similarly, wide criticism followed the display of early Cubist and Expressionist works.
With time, and repeated viewings, aesthetic judgments shift. Attitudes toward the now-familiar style become more positive (Bornstein and Craver-Lemley, 2017).
Architecture
Harrison (1977) opens his account of the mere-exposure effect with an anecdote: the Eiffel Tower, a “seemingly best-loved” structure today (Coutaud and Duclair, 1956).
However, despite its widespread admiration today, the Eiffel Tower’s construction was met with “a storm of protest” (DeVries, 1972). This early condemnation, according to scholars, was near-universal and nearly led to the tower’s demolition in the early 1900s (Coutaud and Duclair, 1956).
Harrison (1977) blames mere exposure. The vastly shifting attitudes toward the structure track the effect: the tower was ubiquitous, inescapable, and seen day after day.
It soon became a familiar part of the skyline, and, per Zajonc’s mere-exposure hypothesis, grew more widely liked (Zajonc, 1968; Harrison, 1977).
Advertising
One of the widest applications of the mere exposure effect is in product sales.
Marketing researchers have built mere-exposure findings into many contemporary advertising campaigns (Janiszewski, 1993; Ruggieri and Boca, 2013; Bornstein and Craver-Lemley, 2017).
Janiszewski (1993), for example, found that mere exposure to a brand name or product package can make consumers view the brand more favorably. The effect needs no memory.
It persists even when consumers cannot recall the original exposure, and even when that exposure was incidental, with no deliberate effort to process the brand information at all.
Janiszewski traces these unintentional effects to preattentive processes, specifically hemispheric processing theory. This framework explains how each side of the brain contributes to language and word interpretation.
References
Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice.
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 319–342.
Anderson H, N. (1968). Likableness Ratings of 555 Personality – Trait Words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 272–279.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). Becoming friends by chance. Psychological Science, 19(5), 439–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02106.x
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593
Bornstein, R. F., & Craver-Lemley, C. (2017). Mere exposure effect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory 256–275
Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.545
Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). The pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(1), 1–8.
Burgess II, T. D., & Sales, S. M. (1971). Attitudinal effects of “mere exposure”: A reevaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(4), 461-472.
Bush, P. A., & Pease, K. G. (1968). Pop records and connotative satiation: Test of Jakobovits’ theory. Psychological Reports, 23(3), 871–875. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3.871
Coutaud, R., & Duclair, J. H. (1956). Paris dans votre poche. Paris: Edition Touristiques Francaises.
Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. E. (1951). Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of a social experiment. U of Minnesota Press.
De Vries, L., & Van Amstel, I. (1972). Victorian inventions. New York: American Heritage Press.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups; a study of human factors in housing.
Gough, H. G. (1955). Reference handbook for the Gough adjective check list. Berkeley: University of California Institute of Personality Assessment and Research
Grush, J. E. (1976). Attitude formation and mere exposure phenomena: A nonartifactual explanation of empirical findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(3), 281.
Harrison, A. A. (1969). Exposure and popularity. Journal of Personality 37, 359-377.
Harrison, A. A. (1977). Mere Exposure. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10(C), 39–83.
Howes, D. H., & Solomon, R. L. (1950). A note on McGinnies’ “Emotionality and perceptual defense.” Psychological Review, 57(4), 229–234.
Howes, D. H., & Solomon, R. L. (1951). Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(6), 401–410.
Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1086/209356
Jakobovits, L. A. (1966). Studies of fads: I. the “Hit Parade”. Psychological Reports, 18(2), 443-450.
Jakobovits, L. A. (1968). Effects of mere exposure: A comment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 30-32.
Johnson, R. C., Thomson, C. W., & Frincke, G. (1960). Word values, word frequency, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 67(5), 332–342.
Johnson, M. A. (1973, April). The attitudinal effects of mere exposure and the experimental environment. In meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Anaheim, Cahf.
Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207(4430), 557–558. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7352271
Maslow, A. H. (1937). The influence of familiarization on preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053692
Matlin, M. W ., & Stang, D. J. (1976). The Pollyanna principle: Affect and evaluation in language, memory and cognition. In preparation.
McGinnies, E. (1949). Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychological Review, 56(5), 244–251.
Meyer, M. (1903). Experimental studies in the psychology of music. The American Journal of Psychology, 14(3/4), 192–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412315
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., Citkowicz, M., & Lauber, E. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 459–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000085
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90055-O
Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1977). Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.191
Osgood, C. E. (1964). Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures 1. American Anthropologist, 66(3), 171-200.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1969). Racially Separate or Together? Journal of Social Issues, 25(1), 43–70.
Priest, R. F., & Sawyer, J. (1967). Proximity and peership: bases of balance in interpersonal attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 72(6), 633–649.
Ruggieri, S., & Boca, S. (2013). At the roots of product placement: The mere exposure effect. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 246–258.
Saegert, S., Swap, W., & Zajonc, R. B. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033965
Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(5), 654–657.
Skaife, A. M. (1967). The role of complexity and deviation in changing taste. unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Oregon.
Solomon, R. L., & Howes, D. H. (1951). Word frequency, personal values, and visual duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 58(4), 256–270.
Stang, D. J. (1974a). An analysis of the effects of political campaigning. [Conference presentation]. Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology 66th annual meeting, Tampa.
Stang, D. J. (1975a, August). Is learning necessary for the attitudinal effects of mere exposure? [Conference presentation]. American Psychological Association Annual meeting
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words.
Washburn, M. F., Child, M. S., & Abel, T. M. (1927). The effects of immediate repetition on the pleasantness or unpleasantness of music. The effects of music, 199-210.
Wilson, W., & Nakajo, H. (1965). Preference for photographs as a function of frequency of presentation. Psychonomic Science, 3(1), 577-578.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(2p2), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154
Zajonc, R. B., Shaver, P., Tavris, C., & Van Kreveld, D. (1972). Exposure, satiation, and stimulus discriminability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032357
Zajonc, R. B., Crandall, R., Kail Jr, R. V., & Swap, W. (1974). Effect of extreme exposure frequencies on different affective ratings of stimuli. Perceptual and motor skills, 38(2), 667-678.
