STIMULUS PROPERTIES, FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE, AND AFFECTIVE RESPONDING

Transcription

1 Perceptual and Motor skill^, 1970, 30, Perceptual and Motor Skills 1970 STIMULUS PROPERTIES, FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE, AND AFFECTIVE RESPONDING JOHN W. REICH AND CARL A. MOODY Arizona State University Summary.-Several variables which might be useful in explaining the relationship between frequency of exposure and attitudinal liking are investigated. Complexity of the stimuli and their familiarity were the major variables of interest. Also involved were the sex of Ss and the individual stimuli. Four sets of stimuli were presented 20 times to independent groups of Ss, with scale ratings taken on the 1st and 20th presentations. The results showed that familiarity and complexity interacted in a complex fashion for liking. For highly familiar stimuli, an inverse relationship between complexity and affect held (p =.lo), but for novel stimuli a significant direct relationship held. Implications of the data for the hypothesized relationship of affect and complexicy were discussed. In a recent monograph, Zajonc (1968) has hypothesized and confirmed in varied instances that there exists a positive relationship between the logarithm of frequency of exposure to a stimulus and attitudinal liking for that stimulus. Although no full explanation of this phenomenon was attempted, it was suggested that an initially novel stimulus (one having no pre-experimental familiarization) elicits negative affect simply because of its novelty. Conflict, fear, and uncertainty occur upon the presentation of a novel stimulus and, in the absence of other events, mere exposure is sufficient to reduce these feelings, with a consequent increase in positive attitudinal responding. Research focussed specifically on these topics relative to liking-disliking is varied but not extensive. Jakobovits and Lambert (1964) found that certain stimuli increased in liking following multiple exposures, but certain other stirnuli decreased. Harrison1 (1968) found that response competition, the presence of incompatible responses, was reduced by increased frequency of exposure, and this occurred concomitant with an increase in positive attitudinal responding. Stimulus uncertainty and arousal was studied by Berlyne, Craw, Salapatek, and Lewis (1963). They found that GSR arousal went down with increased exposures (which was also reported by Zajonc), but they also found that both stimulus complexity, which is typically equated with uncertainty, and incongruity did not relate significantly. In Berlyne's theory of arousal, affect, and stimulus properties (Berlyne, 1960), a relationship would have been expected. Terwilliger ( 1963), Wohlwill ( 1968), and Eisenman and Robinson (1968) have all found a curvilinear relationship between stimulus complexity and liking. Complexity in these cases, and in the study to be reported here, is identified with the uncertainty or variability of the stimulus attributes involved. 'A. A. Harrison. Exposure and popularity. fornia, Davis, 1968) (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Cali-

2 28 J. W. REICH & C. A. MOODY In these studies, it was found that stimuli of either very low or very high degrees of complexity received negative affect ratings, but stimuli of intermediate degrees of complexity were positively regarded. Although these studies did not deal directly with frequency of exposure (another way of regarding novelty), their results are in sufficient agreement that some relevance of them for Zajonc's explanation exists. Concerning frequency of exposure and complexity, Reich ( 1968a, 1968b) has found that complexity (uncertainty) of responding to both word and object stimuli decreases over multiple responding or trials. Multiple exposure, represented by multiple responses, thus appears sufficient to reduce the uncertainty of various sets of stimuli. Further, Hellyer and'straughan (1961) have found that even the learning of high variability behavior is temporary; given multiple trials, behavior returns to a lower variability or less uncertainjr. The studies cited above have all used techniques different from those cited by Zajonc. Actual behavioral complexity was assessed in the Reich and the Hellyer and Straughan studies, and the others mentioned did not involve scale ratings of the type considered by both Zajonc and Harrison, at least when taken in conjunction with the multiple exposures method. The issue of affective liking and disliking has been essentially unexplored in the context of stimulus complexicy variables. The study reported here sought to discover the relation between multiple exposures, stimulus novelty or familiarity, and stimulus complexity-simplicity. No study has heretofore systematically related these variables to each other in the same design. Further, no studies have investigated scale ratings of stimuli both prefamiliarized independently of the experimental setting as well as exposed multiple times within the experiment. Such was done in this study, with the intent of attaining a full assessment of stimulus properties, frequency of exposure, and affective responding. METHOD Sabjects A total of 40 Ss participated as part of their basic psychology course requirement of experimental participation. They were randqmly assigned to the 4 experimental conditions, 10 per group, with the restriction of an equal number of males and females within each group. Previous research has consistently shown a significant sex difference in studies on stimulus complexity (Reich, 1968a, 1968b). Materials and Apparatlls Four sets of stimulus materials were used to represent the two major independent variables of interest, stimulus complexity and stimulus familiarity. Previous research has shown with some consistency (e.g., Reich, 1968a; Jakobovits & Lambert, 1964) chat actual physical objects elicit more complex behaviors

3 'AFFECTIVE. RESPONDING 29 than do their names, both in terms of the number of dimensions of responding they involve as well as the informational uncertainty or complexity of those responses. Thus the stimuli for this study consisted of two sets of physical objects and two sets of their names typed in caps on white 3-in. X 5-in. cards. The stimulus set representing high complexity were 8 small physical objects and were either highly common or highly novel. The common or prefamiliarized set consisted of such objects as a rubber nipple, toy automobile, flashlight bulb, etc. The novel set consisted of such things as a typewriter bail arm, a wall brace, porcelain insulator, etc. The low complexity sets consisted of the names of those objects typed in all caps on 3-in. X 5-in. cards, e.g., WALL BRACE, TYPEWRITER BAIL ARM, etc. The stimuli have been used in previous research (Reich & Woolford, in pre;s; Reich & Alexander, in press) and were pretested for familiarity for those studies. For pretesting, the Novel stimuli were presented to a group of 30 Ss to be verbally identified; none of the stimuli were correctly identified. For the familiar stimuli, a similar procedure was followed, and all stimuli were correctly identified. Further, both stimulus sets were rated for "familiar-unfamiliar" on a seven-point semantic differential scale. The stimuli included in this study received ratings at or near the extreme ends of the scale; mean rating for the familiar stimuli was 1.27, and mean for the unfamiliar stimuli was The stimuli were presented to Ss on a hand-operated rotating circular stage somewhat similar to that described by Karwoski, Gramlick and Arnott (1944). It was divided into 8 wedge-shaped sections, each just large enough to hold either a small physical object or a 3- X 5-in. card on a slightly raised and angled platform to enhance S's view of the stimulus. Walls between the sections obscured all the stimuli except the one being presented. The entire apparatus was placed behind a fiberboard screen measuring 36 in. high and 48 in. wide, with a 12-in. and 6-in. wide slot in the bottom center of the screen; this slot and the stage were so arranged that only one stimulus was visible at one time. The stimuli were rated on a set of 4 7-point scales, assessing the following variables: like-dislike, simple-complex, familiar-unfamiliar, and meaningfulmeaningless. Each scale's end adjectives were randomized across the set of 8 stimuli, and the scales themselves were randomized across the stimuli. Order of stimulus presentations was randomized for each trial; both objects and names were presented in the same randomized order. The stimuli were presented a total of 20 times, with an initial rating taken on the very first presentation. Following the initial ratings, the stimuli were presented for 18 times in unbroken succession, with S remaining passive during the series. The final rating was taken on the 20th presentation. Stimulus exposure time was 5 sec., except for the ratings themselves, during which S was allowed as much time as needed to complete the ratings. The mimeographed instructions to Ss were detailed, explaining the meaning

4 30 J. W. REICH & C. A. MOODY of the 4 scales and how the ratings were to be conducted. The part of the instructions concerning the presentations was: You will be presented with a series of stimuli on a rotating stage. After you have first looked at each stimulus for a brief period, you will rate your thoughts about it on a series of scales. After that, the presentation will continue. The first two scales were included to test for the relationship of affect and complexity. The third, familiar-unfamiliar, was testing for the effects of frequency, per se, to ensure that presentation frequency was in fact having effects on scale ratings. The scale of meaningfulness was included to provide specific information about specific stimuli; this information was planned for use in future studies and, since it was of no direct importance for this study, will not be discussed further in this report. RESULTS Scores on each of the three scales were translated into positive and negative values, with the following scale ends arbitrarily selected as the positive ends: Familiar, Simple, and Like. The scores on each scale were analyzed by a 5-way analysis of variance, assessing Physical-Verbal, and Common-Novel properties, Sex of the Ss, Frequency of exposure, and Stimuli in a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 8 design. The last two variables were repeated measures, and were assessed ar: the 1st and 20th presentations. Sex was included as a control for effects which have been found in other research involving physical objects and their names; it was of little theoretical significance for this study. The Stimulus factor, as indicated before, was included only as a specific guide for later research. Therefore, both the Sex and Stimuli variables will receive little or no discussion throughout the remainder of this report. Familiar-Unfamiliar Scale This scale was analyzed to test for the over-all effects of presentation, per se; if the experimental manipulation of frequency was effective, an increase in scale ratings would be expected. Results for this and the other scales are contained in Table 1. Results for this scale showed that in fact significant familiarization effects did occur. For the Common-Novel variable (F = , df = 1/40, p <.0001), and for the Ratings variable (F = , df = 1/40, p <.0001). Also significant were the interactions of Physical-Verbal X Common-Novel (F = 3.95, df = 1/40, p =.05), Ratings X Physical-Verbal (F = 23.01, df = 1/40, p =.0001), and Ratings X Common-Novel (F = , df = 1/40, p <.001). The triple interaction of Ratings X Physical-Verbal X Common- Novel was also significant (F = 40.52, df = 1/40, p <.0001). Finally, the quadruple interaction of Physical-Verbal X Common-Novel X Sex X Ratings was also significant (F = 6.27, df = 1/40, P =.016). Other significant triple and quadruple interactions involving the Sex and Stimuli factors also occurred.

5 AFFECTIVE RESPONDING 3 1 TABLE 1 MEANS AND SDS OF VERBAL-PHYSICAL, COMMON-NOVEL AND RATINGS CELLS FOR 3 DEPENDENT VARIABLES (N = 96 PER CELL) Variables Verbal Stimuli Physical Stimuli Common Novel Common Novel M SD M SD M SD M SD I. Like-Dislike 1st rating nd rating Simple-Complex 1st rating nd rating Familiar-Unfamiliar 1st raring lo nd rating *Date collapsed on Sex and Stimuli variables. Analyzing mean differences revealed that Common stimuli as originally selected for the study did in fact receive higher familiarity ratings: mean for Common stimuli = 2.13, that for Novel stimuli =.30. For the Ratings variable, mean for the first rating was.70, that for the second rating at the 20th presentation was Means for the Ratings X Physical-Verbal X Common-Novel X Sex interaction were tested for significance with Duncan's multiple-range test, with alpha =.05. This indicated that the frequency manipulation was significantly enhancing of familiarity for males only for Novel stimuli, both Verbal and Physical; for females, the presentations also enhanced familiarity only for Novel stimuli, both Verbal and Physical. Collapsing on Sex effects for the significant triple interaction showed that the frequency manipulation significantly enhanced Common-Verbal, Novel- Verbal, and Novel-Physical stimuli; no enhancement occurred for Common- Physical stimuli. Simple-Complex Scale Results demonstrated that main effects for Common-Novel (F = 23.08, df - 1/40, p =.0001) and Sex (F = 4.69, df = 1/40, p <.03) were significant. Also significant were the double interactions of Physical-Verbal X Common-Novel (F = 5.70, df = 1/40, p <.02) and Ratings X Sex (F = 6.98, df = 1/40, p =.01). The triple interaction of Ratings X Physical-Verbal X Sex was significant (F = 6.08, df = 1/40, p =.02). Finally, the quadruple interaction of Stimuli X Physical-Verbal X Common-Novel X Sex was significant (F = 2.14, df = 7/280, 9 =.04). For the effects of the Common-Novel variable, the means were, respectively, 1.59 and.79, showing that the Familiar stimuli were rated as more simple than

6 32 J. W. RElCH & C. A. MOODY the Novel ones. However, the significant inceraction of that variable with the Physical-Verbal factor showed more clearly the effects of the stimulus properties. and their familiarity. Means for the 4 conditions were: Common-Verbal, 1.85; Common-Physical, 1.33; Novel-Physical,.92, and Novel-Verbal,.66. Testing for the significance of the differences among these means' by Duncan's test indicated that Common-Verbal stimuli were rated significantly more simple than any of the other means, the Common-Physical set was significantly more simple than the Novel-verbal mean, and the two Novel means did not differ from each other. Like-Dislike Scale The only significant main effect was that for Common-Novel stimuli (P = 11.46, df = 1/40, p =.002). The double interaction of Physical-Verbal X Common-Novel was significant (F = 8.27, df = 1/40, p =,006) as was the triple interaction of Ratings X Common-Novel X Sex (F = 7.96, df = 1/40, p =.007 ). Common stimuli were more liked than Novel ones (means, respectively,.70 and.25). In interaction with Physical-Verbal properties, the means were: Common-Physical,.85; Common-Verbal,.55; ~ovel-verbal;.48, and Novel- Physical,.02. Means tests showed that the Common-Physical stimuli were more liked chan the Novel-Physical stimuli, and the Novel-Verbal stimuli were' more liked than the Novel-Physical stimuli. The two means for Common stimuli were not significantly differenc at the.05 level, but were different at the.10 level. The Ratings X Common-Novel X Sex interaction means test showed that presentations enhanced affective ratings for Males on Common stimuli (mean of first rating =.65, mean of second =.90). For Females, the enhancement was significant for Novel stimuli (first rating mean =.lo, second rating mean =.52). DISCUSSION In support of Zajonc's hypothesis, the Common or highly.familiar stimuli were more liked, over-all, than were the Novel stimuli. However, the results showed a complex interaction of stimulus familiarity and complexity for affective responding. Within the realm of highly familiar stimuli, an inverse but not quite significant relationship between stimulus complexity and liking held: Simpler stimi~li (Verbal) were less liked than more complex (Physical) ones. However, within the realm of Novel stimuli, just the opposite relationship held: Simpler stimuli were more liked chan more complex ones, and the difference was significant at the.05 level. These results have to be considered in the light of an absence of genuinely strong liking for any stimulus, a point to be discussed later. The effect of stimulus properties takes on a differenc meaning as a function

7 AFFECTIVE RESPONDING 33 of frequency of prior experience.. As revealed in Table 1, it can be seen that for Common stimuli, objects are rated as more complex than their names. However, for Novel stimuli, the names are rated as more complex than their objects, although the difference is only a strong but not significant trend. The effect of past exposure has been, therefore, to tend to make the names of objects more simple than the objects themselves. Such might be expected from a language learning point of view; words are highly common stimuli in the lives of most adults, perhaps even more so than the.objects to which they refer. For Novel stimuli, object properties were found to lead to ratings of slightly greater simplicity. Familiarity or higher frequency of exposure thus was found to create differential levels of simplicity; viewed in another way, this is congruent with the finding that, over-all, Common stimuli were rated as more simple than were Novel 'ones. Arguments presented in Reich (1968b) have attempted to account for the effects of multiple responses and stimulus properties and thus appear to have some relevance for the results of this study, although the methods of the two studies differ considerably. The effects of the increased frequency manipulation in this study (20 presentations) were generally nonsignificant. The Common stimuli were already highly familiar and, as suggested by Zajonc (1968, p. 24), attitudinal enhancement would not be expected for these stimuli. For Novel stimuli, the familiarity ratings did change toward enhancement. The ratings for the other two variables, liking and simplicity, operated oppositely; for liking, the frequency manipulation was effective, but it was not effective for the complexity variable. It appears that the exposures were not sufficient to enhance complexity ratings of already familiar stimuli or to change responses consistently to Novel ones. These data are in general agreement with other studies currently in progress in the authors' laboratory which show that scale ratings of complexity, per se, are not reliably influenced by increased exposure. Of course, methods and stimulus differences may significantly influence the conclusions which can be drawn; other studies cited in the earlier parts of this report do in fact show that simplicity increases across response trials. The data on like-dislike responses have relevance for several points raised by Jakobovits ( 1968) in his review of the Zajonc monograph. Research evidence from a study by Jakobovits and Lambert (1964) showed that semantic satiation (a loss of scale polarization) occurs for multiple presentations of certain sets of stimuli (words and photographs of stimuli). In that same study, it was also found that common physical objects actually increased in polarization across multiple trials, as Zajonc's hypothesis would predict. Jakobovits and Lambert present a theoretical discussion which attempts to account for the differences between words and their objects. However, no significant or compelling evidence for the semantic satiation interpretation was found in the present study. While some means did not be-

8 34 J. W. REICH & C. A. MOODY come significantly more positive in liking, none decreased significantly. Such was also generally true of the Simple-Complex and Familiar-Unfamiliar scales.. Jakobovits (1968) extended the semantic satiation theory in his critique of the Zajonc monograph. Satiation theory, as extended, would predict that stimuli initially rated "good" (by implication, liked) would lose polarization and be less liked or disliked on a later rating. Zajonc's monograph offers no direct evidence for this, however, as the bulk of the supporting evidence indicates initially negative ratings for the stimuli. The study reported here, however, is directly relevant. As shown in Table 1, both Common and Novel stimuli increased in liking across ratings, even though they were already somewhat polarized on the first rating. The same occurred for Physical and Verbal stimuli. The evidence of this study is not confirmatory of Jakobovits' discussion. On the other hand, the evidence is not overly compelling in any respect relative to liking, per Je, as none of the means showed either extreme liking or disliking; the effects of presentation were generally only insignificant. One finding of this stltdy is congruent with Zajonc's discussion but did not receive full attention there. As noted by Jakobovits, and discovered in the present study, none of the results indicated very extreme degrees of attitudinal positivity. The largest Like-Dislike mean in this study for any significant variable was always less than 1.5 (scale possibility 3.0). Similarly, in the Zajonc monograph, the majority of the reported means was only slightly above the neutral scale value of 3.0. As Jakobovits noted, it is difficult to consider these values as highly "attitudinal," and thus the issue arises as to whether or not high exposure frequency creates positive affect or only serves to mitigate negative affect. As no significant negative affect was found for any of the 4 sets of stimuli, ic would not seem to be the latter, although movement away from neutral responding was found. However, the data provide no striking evidence for positive attitude either. In line with some of the suggestions of Jakobovits, the clearest inrerpretacion of the results of this study would be that higher frequency removes some of the neutrality from stimuli and moves them toward somewhat more positive ratings (given the experimental limitation of 20 presentations used in this study). The extent to which positivity of a strong degree can be created by "mere exposure" remains to be consistently demonstrated and clearly related to stimulus complexity. REFERENCES BERLYNE, D. E. Conflict, curiority, and exploratory behavior. New York: McGraw- Hill, BERLYNE, D. E., CRAW, M. A., SALAPATEK, P. H., & LEWS, J. L. Novelty, complexity, incongruity, extrins~c motivation, and the GSR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, EISENMAN, R., & ROBINSON, N. Generaliry of some complexity-simplicity measures related to creativity. Proceedingr, 76th Annual Convention, Americas Psychologic~l Associarion, 1968, 3,

9 AFFECTIVE RESPONDING 3 5 HARRISON, A. A. Response competition, frequency, exploratory behavior, and liking. Journal of Personality and So~ial Psychology, 1968, 9, HBLLYER, S., & S ~UGHAN, J. H. Alternation as function of preliminary training and type of deprivation. Science, 1961, 133, JAKOBOV~TS, L. A. Effects of mere exposure: a coniment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 1968,9, No. 2, Part 2. JAKOBOVITS, L. A., & LAMBBRT, W. E. Stimulus-characteristics as determinants of semantic chan es with repeated presentation. American Journal of Psychology, 1964, 77, d92. IO\RWOSKI, T. F., GRAMLICK, F. W., & ~ NOTT, P. Psychological srudies in semantics: I. Free association reactions to words, drawings, and objects. Journal of Social Psychology, 1944, 20, REICH, J. W. Stimulus complexity mediation of categorization behavior. Percefituaj and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, (a) REICH, J. W. Stimulus and personality complexity in maintenance of categorization behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, (b) REICH, J. W., & ALEXANDER, R. A. Stimulus property mediation of paired-associates learning. Journal of General Psychology, in press. REICH, J. W., & WOOLFORD, B. Stimulus novelty and mediation as factors in categorization complexity. Journal of General Psychology, 1969, In press. TERWILLIGER, R. F. Pattern complexity and affective arousal. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 17, WOHLWILL, J. F. Stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., April, ZAJONC, R. B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 1968, 9, No. 2, Part 2. Accepted November 14, 1969.