Skip to main content
Log in

Approaching the familiar: On the ability of mere exposure to direct approach and avoidance behavior

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The mere-exposure literature has shown that familiar objects are preferred to novel objects. However, no work has definitively shown that mere exposure can direct and facilitate approach movements. In Experiment 1, participants were shown stimuli and were later re-exposed to them along with novel stimuli. Participants were directed to make an approach or avoidant motion to each and response times were recorded. As predicted, participants were quicker to approach and slower to avoid familiar relative to novel stimuli. In Experiment 2, participants were shown mere-exposed and novel symbols and were asked to “push” or “pull” a joystick in response to each, based on their intuition. Extending Experiment 1’s findings, participants freely selected an approach response more frequently for familiar compared to novel stimuli. Moreover, in this same experiment, familiar stimuli were judged as more likeable than were novel stimuli, and participants’ liking for familiar stimuli correlated with the frequency with which they were approached. Implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There was neither a main effect of, nor interaction involving, participant gender.

  2. We ran a 2 (motion: push, pull) × 2 (status: familiar, novel) × 2 (stimulus set approached: set A, set B) × 2 (stimulus set familiar: set A, set B) mixed-model ANOVA. Unexpectedly, there was one significant effect that involved a counterbalancing factor: the stimulus set familiar × motion × status interaction. The pattern of this interaction showed that the predicted motion × status interaction was significant only when stimulus set A was the familiar set (and thus set B was the novel set). The results reported in the main text collapse over this factor, so some caution should be used when generalizing those findings.

  3. There was neither a main effect of, nor interaction involving, participant gender.

  4. In the assessment of demographic information, we asked participants in this experiment if they could read or speak Chinese. Nine participants indicated that they could. The findings reported in the main text include these participants because analyses that excluded them yielded the same results.

References

  • Arkes, H. R., Hackett, C., & Boehm, L. (1989). The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L. L., & Marlin, D. W. (1982). I don’t like it; I never tried it: Effects of exposure on two-year-old children’s food preferences. Appetite: Journal for Intake Research, 3, 353–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F., Leone, D. R., & Galley, D. J. (1987). The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: Influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1070–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., & Somervell, E. (2001). The effect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1578–1586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claypool, H. M., Hugenberg, K., Housley, M. K., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Familiar eyes are smiling: On the role of familiarity in the perception of facial affect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 856–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, C. S. (1985). The liking of foods as a result of exposure: Eating doughnuts in Alaska. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 889–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, W. F. (1978). Effects of mere exposure on preferences in nonhuman mammals. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1177–1198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psychological Review, 97, 377–395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical report A-8. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., & Van Zandt, B. J. S. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 646–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., & Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constraining theories of embodied cognition. Psychological Science, 16, 6–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, A. A., Ambady, N., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). The effects of fear and anger facial expressions on approach- and avoidance-related behaviors. Emotion, 5, 119–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality & Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roopnarine, J. L. (1985). Changes in peer-directed behaviors following preschool experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 740–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotteveel, M., & Phaf, R. H. (2004). Automatic affective evaluation does not automatically predispose for arm flexion and extension. Emotion, 4, 156–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seamon, J. G., McKenna, P. A., & Binder, N. (1998). The mere exposure effect is differentially sensitive to different judgment tasks. Consciousness and Cognition, 7, 85–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seibt, B., Neumann, R., Nussinson, R., & Strack, F. (2008). Movement direction or change in distance? Self- and object-related approach-avoidance motions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 713–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, S. G., & Claypool, H. M. (2010). Mere exposure has differential effects on attention allocation to threatening and neutral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 424–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology [Monograph], 9, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation [BCS-0719694] awarded to Heather Claypool.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isaiah F. Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, I.F., Young, S.G. & Claypool, H.M. Approaching the familiar: On the ability of mere exposure to direct approach and avoidance behavior. Motiv Emot 35, 383–392 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9228-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9228-7

Keywords

Navigation