Mere exposure has differential effects on attention allocation to threatening and neutral stimuli

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 424-427

  Young, Steven G ^a   Claypool, Heather M ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Affect; Attention; Mere exposure; Stimulus valence

Indexed keywords

EID: 75749134464     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: 10960465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.015     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bornstein R.F. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin 106 (1989) 265-289
2. Bornstein R.F. Mere exposure effects with outgroup stimuli. In: Mackie D.M., and Hamilton D.L. (Eds). Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (1993), Academic Press, San Diego 195-211
3. Brosch T., Sander D., and Scherer K.R. That baby caught my eye. Attention capture by infant faces. Emotion 7 (2007) 685-689
4. Claypool H.M., Hugenberg K., Housley M.K., and Mackie D.M. Familiar eyes are smiling. On the role of familiarity in the perception of facial affect. European Journal of Social Psychology 37 (2007) 856-866
5. Eastwood J.D., Smilek D., and Merikle P. Negative facial expression captures attention and disrupts performance. Perception & Psychophysics 65 (2003) 352-358
6. Fox E., Russo R., and Dutton K. Attentional bias for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces. Cognition & Emotion 16 (2002) 355-379
7. Gable P.A., and Harmon-Jones E. Approach-motivated positive affect reduces breadth of attention. Psychological Science 19 (2008) 476-482
8. Harmon-Jones E., and Allen J.J.B. The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (2001) 889-898
9. Hill W.F. Effects of mere exposure on preferences in nonhuman mammals. Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978) 1177-1198
10. Litvak S.B. Attitude change by stimulus exposures. Psychological Reports 25 (1969) 391-396
11. Lundqvist D., and Ohman A. Emotion regulates attention: The relation between facial configurations, facial emotion, and visual attention. Visual Cognition 12 (2005) 51-84
12. Maner J.K., Kenrick D.T., Becker D.V., Delton A.W., Hofer B., Wilbur C.J., et al. Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 85 (2003) 1107-1120
13. Mogg K., and Bradley B.P. Orienting of attention to threatening facial expressions presented under conditions of restricted awareness. Cognition & Emotion 13 (1999) 713-740
14. Öhman A., Lundqvist D., and Esteves F. The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (2001) 381-396
15. Pettigrew T.F., and Tropp L.R. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 90 (2006) 751-783
16. Reber R., Schwarz N., and Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality & Social Psychology Review 8 (2004) 364-382
17. Rothermund K., Wentura D., and Bak P.M. Automatic attention to stimuli signalling chances and dangers: Moderating effects of positive and negative goal and action contexts. Cognition & Emotion 15 (2001) 231-248
18. Tottenham N., Tanaka J., Leon A.C., McCarry T., Nurse M., and Hare T.A. The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research 168 (2008) 242-249
19. Zajonc R.B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs 9 (1968) 1-27