Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 119–130 | Cite as

Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs

  • Dena Cox
  • Anthony D. Cox
Article

Abstract

This article presents an experiment examining the effects of stimulus complexity on consumers' aesthetic preferences. The results suggest that preferences for visually complex product designs tend to increase with repeated exposure, while preferences for visually simple product designs tend to decrease with repeated exposure. In addition, the results suggest thatperceived complexity partially mediates the exposure-preference relationship. The authors discuss implications of these findings for market researchers conducting aesthetic product design concept tests, as well as more basic research on the affective impact of repeated exposure.

Keywords

Product Design Repeated Exposure Consumer Research Simple Design Complex Design 
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. Albert, Eric and Sam Witryol. 1990. “Children's Preference for Complexity as a Function of Perceived Units in Collative Motivation.”Journal of Genetic Psychology 151 (1): 91–101.Google Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D. E. 1970. “Novelty, Complexity and Hedonic Value.”Perception and Psychophysics 8 (November): 279–286.Google Scholar
  3. — and G. H. Lawrence. 1964. “Effects of Complexity and Incongruity Variables on GSR, Investigatory Behavior and Verbally Expressed Preference.”Journal of General Psychology 71: 21–45.Google Scholar
  4. Bloch, P. 1995. “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response.”Journal of Marketing 59 (3): 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein, R. F. 1989. “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968–1987.”Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — and P. R. D'Agostino. 1992. “Stimulus Recognition and the Mere Exposure Effect.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (4): 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantor, G. N. 1968. “Like-Dislike Ratings of Familiarized and Nonfamiliarized Visual Stimuli.”Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 6 (December): 651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook, T. and D. Campbell. 1979.Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, D. and A. Cox 1988. “What Does Familiarity Breed? Complexity as a Moderator of Repetition Effects in Advertisement Evaluation.”Journal of Consumer Research 15: 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falk, Ruma and Clifford Konold. 1997. “Making Sense of Randomness: Implicit Encoding as a Basis for Judgment.”Psychological Review 104 (2): 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hekkert, P. and P. Von Wieringen. 1990. “Complexity and Prototypicality as Determinants of Appraisal of Cubist Paintings.”British Journal of Psychology 81: 483–495.Google Scholar
  12. Hochberg, J. 1988.Perception and Cognition at Century's End. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. James, Lawrence and Jeanne Brett. 1984. “Mediators, Moderators, and Tests of Mediation.”Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (2): 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janiszewski, Chris. 1988. “Preconscious Processing Effects: The Independence of Attitude Formation and Conscious Thought.”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September): 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. —. 1993. “Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects.”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (3): 376–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keppel, Geoffrey. 1982.Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Kotler, P. and G. A. Rath. 1984. “Design: A Powerful But Neglected Strategic Tool.”Journal of Business Strategy 5 (Fall): 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lorenz, C. 1986.The Design Dimension: Product Strategy and the Challenge of Global Marketing, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Mandler, George. 1982. “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste.” InAffect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium. Eds. Margaret Clark and Susan Fiske. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3–36.Google Scholar
  20. Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice Tybout. 1989. “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June): 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moulson, T. and G. Sproles. 2000. “Styling Strategy.”Business Horizons 43 (5): 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Obermiller, C. 1985. “Varieties of Mere Exposure: The Effects of Processing Style and Repetition on Affective Response.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June): 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Page, A. and H. Rosenbaum. 1987. “Redesigning Product Lines With Conjoint Analysis: How Sunbeam Does It.”Journal of Product Innovation Management 4: 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters, Tom. 1992.Liberation Management. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  25. Reber, Rolf, Piotr Winkielman, and Norbert Schwartz. 1998. “Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments.”Psychological Science 45 (January): 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reynolds, Fred and William Wells. 1977.Consumer Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Robinson, D. 1975. “Style Changes: Cyclical, Inexorable and Foreseeable.”Harvard Business Review 53 (November–December): 121–131.Google Scholar
  28. Saegert, S. and J. Jellison. 1970. “Effects of Initial Level of Response Competition and Frequency of Exposure on Liking and Exploratory Behavior.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16 (November): 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saliagas, Dena. 1984. “An Investigation of the Affective Response: Applications to Advertising Communications.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Houston. TX.Google Scholar
  30. Schmitt, B. and A. Simonson. 1997.Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz, David. 1987.Concept Testing: How to Test New Product Ideas Before You Go to Market. New York: American Management Association.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, G. and D. Dorfman. 1975. “The Effect of Stimulus Uncertainty on the Relationship Between Frequency of Exposure and Liking.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (January): 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stang, D. and E. O'Connell. 1974. “The Computer as Experimenter in Social Psychology Research.”Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation 6: 223–231.Google Scholar
  34. Thau, Barbara. 2000. “Target's Hip Mix Hits Bull's Eye, Revolutionizes Mass Retailing.”HFN The Weekly Newspaper for the Home Furnishing Network, May 29, p. 40s.Google Scholar
  35. Veryzer, R. W. and J. W. Hutchinson. 1998. “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs.”Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 374–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zajonc, R. B. 1968. “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement 9 (2, pt. 2): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dena Cox
    • 1
  • Anthony D. Cox
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations