The subliminal mere exposure effect does not generalize to structurally related stimuli

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 61-68

  Newell, Ben R ^a   Bright, James E H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECALL; RECOGNITION;

ADULT; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; MENTAL RECALL; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SUBLIMINAL STIMULATION; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 0037365705     PISSN: 11961961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/h0087413     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bornstein, R. F. (1992). Subliminal mere exposure effects. In R. F. Bornstein & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Perception without awareness: Cognitive, clinical and social perspectives (pp. 191-210). New York: Guilford Press.
2. Bornstein, R. F. (1994). Are subliminal mere exposure effects a form of implicit learning? Behavioral and Brain Sciences (17), 398-399.
3. 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.
4. Brooks, L. R., & Vokey, J. R. (1991). Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989). Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 120, 316-323.
5. Gordon, P. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Implicit learning and generalization of the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 492-500.
6. Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A. (1974). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford, UK: Robert E. Krieger.
7. Kunimoto, C., Miller, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Confidence and accuracy of near-threshold discrimination responses. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 294-340.
8. Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognised. Science, 207, 557-558.
9. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., & Van Zandt, B. J. S. (1987). Nonspecific effects of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 646-648.
10. Manza, L., & Bornstein, R. F. (1995). Affective discrimination and the implicit learning process. Consciousness and Cognition, 4, 399-409.
11. Manza, L., Hallman, C., McCoy, A., Shumway, E., Ruchzak, M., Laepple, K., & Dangler, R. (1999). Structural mere exposure: The influence of instructional set and stimulus complexity on implicit learning. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Providence, RI.
12. Manza, L., Zizak, D., & Reber, A. S. (1998). Artificial grammar learning and the mere exposure effect: Emotional preference tasks and the implicit learning process. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 201-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Murphy, S. T., Monahan, J. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1995). Additivity of nonconscious affect: Combined effects of priming and exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 589-602.
14. Newell, B. R., & Bright, J. E. H. (2001). The relationship between the structural mere exposure effect and the implicit learning process, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1087-1104.
15. Reingold, E. M., & Merikle, P. M. (1990). On the inter-relatedness of theory and measurement in the study of unconscious processes. Mind and Language, 5, 9-28.
16. 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. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 544-555.
17. Seamon, J. G., & Delgado, M. R. (1999). Recognition memory and affective preference for depth rotated solid objects: Part-based structural descriptions may underlie the mere-exposure effect. Visual Cognition, 6, 145-164.
18. 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.
19. Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994a). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367-447.
20. Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994b). How should implicit learning be characterized? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 427-447.
21. St. John, M. F., & Shanks, D. R. (1997). Implicit learning from an information processing standpoint. In D. C. Berry (Ed.), How implicit is implicit learning? (pp. 162-194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Vokey, J. R., & Brooks, L. R. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in learning artificial grammars. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 328-344.
23. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Price, J. R. (2001). Implicit/explicit memory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing: Rethinking the mere-exposure effect. Memory & Cognition, 29, 234-246.
24. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9, 1-27.