Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 148–154 | Cite as

Repeated exposure and the attractiveness of synthetic speech: An inverted-U relationship

  • Stephen M. Williams
Articles Also In This Issue

Abstract

Previous experimental investigation of the effects of repeating an unfamiliar stimulus suggests that mere exposure breeds attraction (e.g., Zajonc, 1968). On the other hand, correlational work with naturally occurring stimuli such as names, music, or landscapes suggests that there is also an overexposure effect: the preference function does rise with familiarity at first but then reaches a turning point and diminishes. The study (N=72) demonstrates this inverted-U relationship in an experimental setting. The stimuli were synthetic nonsense speech, permitting exact control of exposure durations and interstimulus intervals. The critical factors for demonstrating the effect are probably (1) the inclusion of a large number of repetitions, and (2) blocked repetition of each stimulus in a homogeneous sequence not interspersed with other more or less frequent stimuli.

Keywords

Quadratic Trend Nonsense Word Synthetic Speech Mere Exposure Current Psychological Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berlyne, D.E. (1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value.Perception and Psychophysics 8, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D.E. (1971).Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  3. Cantor, G.N. (1968). Children’s “like-dislike” ratings of familiarized and unfamiliarized visual stimuli.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 6, 651–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colman, A.M., Sluckin, W., & Hargreaves, D.J. (1981). The effect of familiarity on preferences for surnames.British Journal of Psychology, 72, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colman, A.M., Walley, M., & Sluckin, W. (1975). Preferences for common words, uncommon words and non-words by children and young adults.British Journal of Psychology, 66, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Long, M.R., & Saluoso-Deonier, C. (1983). Effect of redundancy on female observers visual responses to clothing.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 243–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hargreaves, D.J., Colman, A.M. & Sluckin, W. (1983). The attractiveness of names.Human Relations, 36, 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harrison, A.A. (1977). Mere exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hunter, M.A., Ross, H.S., & Ames, E.W. (1982). Preferences for familiar or novel toys: Effect of familiarization time in 1-year-olds.Developmental Psychology, 18, 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inomata, S. (1983). Research on repeated exposure effects of the stimulus.Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jorgensen, B.W., & Cervone, J.S. (1978). Affect enhancement in the pseudorecognition task.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keppel, G. (1973).Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. McWhirter, L. (1983). Contact and conflict: The question of integrated education.Irish Journal of Psychology, 6, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rose, S.A., Gottfried, A.W., Melloy-Carminar, P., & Bridger, W.H. (1982). Familiarity and novelty preferences in infant recognition memory: Implications for information processing.Developmental Psychology, 18, 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seamon, J.G., Brody, N., & Kauff, D.M. (1983). Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized. II. Effect of delay between study and test.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sluckin, W., Hargreaves, D.J., & Colman, A.M. (1982). Some experimental studies of familiarity and liking.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 35, 189–194.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, D.F., & Dorfman, D.D. (1975). The effect of stimulus uncertainty on the relationship between frequency of exposure and liking.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thompson, D.E., Aiello, J.R., & Epstein, E.M. (1979). Interpersonal distance preference.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 4, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams, S.M. (1985). How the familiarity of a landscape affects appreciation of it.Journal of Environmental Management, 21, 63–67.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, W.R. (1979). Feeling more than we can know: Exposure effects without learning.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9 (No. 2, Part 2).Google Scholar
  22. Zajonc, R.B., Shaver, P., Tavris, C., & Kreveld, D.V. (1972). Exposure, satiation and stimulus discriminability.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 270–280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen M. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Ulster at Coleraine

Personalised recommendations