Memory Enhances the Mere Exposure Effect

The fact of having already encountered something encourages future preference, a phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect (MEE). There is a widely accepted view that recognition inhibits the MEE. Here this view is contested and the generality of the findings upon which it is based questioned. New evidence is presented from a systematic investigation of the moderating influence of recognition memory on the MEE, using brand logo stimuli and methods that make the results directly applicable to marketing practice. It is shown that recognition, whether correct or mistaken, enhances, rather than inhibits, the likelihood of preference. C © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The mere exposure effect (MEE; Zajonc, 1968) is that exposure to a stimulus, without any reinforcement, tends to enhance liking of that stimulus. It is typically found after brief, repeated exposures to an audience with low levels of attention and involvement; conditions that often characterize our increasingly cluttered media and consumption environments (Ha and Litman, 1997; Skinner and Stephens, 2003). Given that consumers are often engaged in tasks that occupy attention and severely limit their engagement with advertising (MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski, 1991; Shapiro et al., 1997), it is potentially of great relevance to understanding, explaining, and influencing the effects of contemporary marketing communication (Bornstein and Craver-Lemley, 2004; Grimes, 2008). Its efficacy in this domain, however, is dependent on a detailed understanding of the factors that enhance and constrain the size of the effect. Significant reviews of the MEE have identified recognition memory as the most important limiting factor, considerably reducing the size of the experimental effect (see Bornstein, 1989; Bornstein and Craver-Lemley, 2004). Historically, this claim has been influential in the interpretation of the MEE in the marketing literature. The natural implication is that the effect is strongest when consumers are not able to recognize items they have been exposed to. This is contrary to traditional assumptions regarding the importance of attention, engagement, and memory in marketing communication, and raises the spectre of “hidden persuasion” (Packard, 1957). An early, impressive demonstration of the MEE without conscious perception, and thus without memory, for the exposed stimuli has reinforced the impression that exposure of which consumers are unaware is at the core of this phenomenon (KunstWilson and Zajonc, 1980). Because of these factors there has been an underestimation of the importance and ubiquity of the MEE in the marketing literature. This paper calls into question the validity of the claim that recognition memory diminishes the size of the MEE. A review of the literature suggests that the foundations for this claim are weak and that, rather than there being a consensus, the influence of recognition memory remains an open empirical question and a central point of contention between competing theories of mere exposure. Indeed, it is contended here that the issue of how both veridical recognition and the subjective experience of memory influence the MEE is crucial to deciding between theories of this phenomenon. Furthermore, it is of practical importance to the effective and appropriate application of the MEE in a marketing context. From a practitioner perspective, the question is simple: will attention, engagement and subsequent stimulus recognition exert a positive or negative influence on the size of the MEE in marketing communication? Here it is endeavored to provide an answer to this question by robustly examining the moderating influence of recognition memory in conditions that more closely approximate those of real-world environments. To be clear, the intention is not to disentangle the relative influence of explicit versus implicit memory in the creation of the MEE, but rather to demonstrate that the effect is larger or smaller in the presence of recognition Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29(12): 995–1003 (December 2012) View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar C © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20581