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

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.

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

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bornstein, R. F. 1989. “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968–1987.”Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 265–289.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cantor, G. N. 1968. “Like-Dislike Ratings of Familiarized and Nonfamiliarized Visual Stimuli.”Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 6 (December): 651–657

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Janiszewski, Chris. 1988. “Preconscious Processing Effects: The Independence of Attitude Formation and Conscious Thought.”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September): 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. —. 1993. “Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects.”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (3): 376–393.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moulson, T. and G. Sproles. 2000. “Styling Strategy.”Business Horizons 43 (5): 45–52.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dena Cox.

Additional information

Dena Cox is an associate professor of marketing at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Houston. She publishes research primarily on aspects of consumer behavior and promotion effects and marketing research. She has published her research in theJournal of Marketing, theJournal of Consumer Research, and theJournal of Retailing.

Anthony D. Cox is an associate professor of marketing at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. He received his Ph.D. from Indiana University. His research focus is on forecasting demand and consumer behavior and advertising effects. He has published in theJournal of Marketing, theJournal of Marketing Research, and theJournal of Consumer Research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cox, D., Cox, A.D. Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 30, 119–130 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994371

Download citation

Keywords

  • Product Design
  • Repeated Exposure
  • Consumer Research
  • Simple Design
  • Complex Design