← The Casebook

Comparative specimens

01

Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc subliminal exposure. Affective discrimination was significantly above chance (60% accuracy) while recognition performance was near chance (48%). Seventeen of 24 subjects discriminated better via affect than via recognition. This demonstrated that the mere-exposure effect can operate when stimuli are too degraded to support conscious recognition.

William R. Kunst-Wilson & Robert B. Zajonc, 1980 · n = 24 undergraduate subjects

02

Bornstein meta-analysis. Combined significance level of p < .0000001 with a fail-safe N of 33,047. The effect was robust across stimulus types (nonsense words, meaningful words, photographs, music) but reduced with large numbers of exposures (inverted-U pattern). Heterogeneous display produced larger effects than homogeneous display.

Robert F. Bornstein, 1989 · 208 studies

03

Murphy & Zajonc affective priming. Subliminal positive primes increased liking of ideograms; supraliminal primes showed reduced or reversed effects. This demonstrated that conscious awareness of the source of affect can disrupt the exposure effect through attributional discounting.

Sheila T. Murphy & Robert B. Zajonc, 1993 · n = 78 undergraduates (Experiment 1)

On loan · documented cases

  • New Coke launch and brand loyalty failure · 1985

    When Coca-Cola launched New Coke in 1985, replacing the original formula, the company underestimated the mere-exposure effect on brand preference. Consumers had decades of repeated exposure to the original formula, creating deep-seated preferences that were not predicted by taste-test data. The backlash forced Coca-Cola to reintroduce the original formula as 'Coca-Cola Classic' within months.

  • Classroom exposure and student affinity · 1992

    Moreland and Beach (1992) demonstrated the mere-exposure effect in a naturalistic classroom setting. Female confederates attended a college course varying in frequency (0, 5, 10, or 15 sessions). At the end of the semester, students reported greater liking for confederates they had seen more frequently, even though no interaction occurred and students did not recognize having seen them before.

Handling instructions

Explicitly evaluate stimuli on their objective attributes rather than relying on gut preference. When you notice a preference, ask yourself whether it stems from genuine quality or from familiarity alone. Research shows that making the source of fluency salient can reduce the mere-exposure effect through attributional discounting.

When participants are aware that their fluency stems from prior exposure rather than stimulus quality, they discount the fluency and the preference effect diminishes (Jacoby & Whitehouse, 1989; Murphy & Zajonc, 1993).

Catch it in the act

Watch for situations where you prefer a brand, song, or person simply because you have encountered them repeatedly, not because of any positive attributes. Notice if your preference weakens when you learn the true source of the familiarity (attributional discounting). Advertisers exploit this by ensuring repeated ad exposure even when consumers do not consciously attend to the ads.

File your own case

Open the same case on your own draft.

Paste a memo, a research draft, or a strategy argument. It is scored against all 175 cards, and the strongest two or three risks come back with the evidence quoted and one practical next check.

Open a case on your draft →