Limits...
The mere exposure effect in the domain of haptics.

Jakesch M, Carbon CC - PLoS ONE (2012)

Bottom Line: Analysis of "Need for Touch" data showed the MEE in participants with high need for touch, which suggests different sensitivity or saturation levels of MEE.This different sensitivity or saturation levels might also reflect the effects of expertise on the haptic evaluation of objects.It seems that haptic and cross-modal MEEs are influenced by factors similar to those in the visual domain indicating a common cognitive basis.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of General Psychology and Methodology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. martina.jakesch@uni-bamberg.de

ABSTRACT

Background: Zajonc showed that the attitude towards stimuli that one had been previously exposed to is more positive than towards novel stimuli. This mere exposure effect (MEE) has been tested extensively using various visual stimuli. Research on the MEE is sparse, however, for other sensory modalities.

Methodology/principal findings: We used objects of two material categories (stone and wood) and two complexity levels (simple and complex) to test the influence of exposure frequency (F0 = novel stimuli, F2 = stimuli exposed twice, F10 = stimuli exposed ten times) under two sensory modalities (haptics only and haptics & vision). Effects of exposure frequency were found for high complex stimuli with significantly increasing liking from F0 to F2 and F10, but only for the stone category. Analysis of "Need for Touch" data showed the MEE in participants with high need for touch, which suggests different sensitivity or saturation levels of MEE.

Conclusions/significance: This different sensitivity or saturation levels might also reflect the effects of expertise on the haptic evaluation of objects. It seems that haptic and cross-modal MEEs are influenced by factors similar to those in the visual domain indicating a common cognitive basis.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Schematic procedure of the whole experimental session plus balancing procedure for frequencies and stimuli.Participants were assigned randomly to one of the three sets.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3275618&req=5

pone-0031215-g002: Schematic procedure of the whole experimental session plus balancing procedure for frequencies and stimuli.Participants were assigned randomly to one of the three sets.

Mentions: Participants were tested individually. The design of the current study was adopted from Zajonc, VanKreveld, Tavris and Shaver [16]. Three sets (A, B, C) of stimuli (each consisting of eight stimuli, four made of wood and four made of stone) were created. The exposure frequency was varied on three levels pre evaluation: F0 = novel stimuli; F2 = stimuli presented twice and F10 = stimuli presented ten times. Sets and frequencies were counterbalanced between participants. In Figure 2, the balancing procedure (stimuli×exposure frequencies) is displayed in detail. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the sets. All tests (tactile sensitivity/visual acuity) were conducted in the beginning of each experimental session. Participants were then blindfolded (by using a mask) and were also told to avoid touching anything but the stimuli so that their ratings would not be influenced by other surfaces. In the “exposure phase” (Phase E1), two of the three sets of stimuli were presented twice (F2) and ten times (F10). During the subsequent “judgment phase” (Phase J2), all stimuli had to be rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “I do not like it at all”; 7 = “I like it very much”). In both phases, the stimuli were placed inside the hands of the participants in randomized order to be explored actively. After the experiment had ended participants were fully informed about the study and allowed to ask questions. Written consent was obtained from each participant prior to the experimental session. As all data were collected anonymously and no harming procedures were used, ethical approval was not sought for the execution of this study.


The mere exposure effect in the domain of haptics.

Jakesch M, Carbon CC - PLoS ONE (2012)

Schematic procedure of the whole experimental session plus balancing procedure for frequencies and stimuli.Participants were assigned randomly to one of the three sets.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3275618&req=5

pone-0031215-g002: Schematic procedure of the whole experimental session plus balancing procedure for frequencies and stimuli.Participants were assigned randomly to one of the three sets.
Mentions: Participants were tested individually. The design of the current study was adopted from Zajonc, VanKreveld, Tavris and Shaver [16]. Three sets (A, B, C) of stimuli (each consisting of eight stimuli, four made of wood and four made of stone) were created. The exposure frequency was varied on three levels pre evaluation: F0 = novel stimuli; F2 = stimuli presented twice and F10 = stimuli presented ten times. Sets and frequencies were counterbalanced between participants. In Figure 2, the balancing procedure (stimuli×exposure frequencies) is displayed in detail. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the sets. All tests (tactile sensitivity/visual acuity) were conducted in the beginning of each experimental session. Participants were then blindfolded (by using a mask) and were also told to avoid touching anything but the stimuli so that their ratings would not be influenced by other surfaces. In the “exposure phase” (Phase E1), two of the three sets of stimuli were presented twice (F2) and ten times (F10). During the subsequent “judgment phase” (Phase J2), all stimuli had to be rated on a 7-point scale (1 = “I do not like it at all”; 7 = “I like it very much”). In both phases, the stimuli were placed inside the hands of the participants in randomized order to be explored actively. After the experiment had ended participants were fully informed about the study and allowed to ask questions. Written consent was obtained from each participant prior to the experimental session. As all data were collected anonymously and no harming procedures were used, ethical approval was not sought for the execution of this study.

Bottom Line: Analysis of "Need for Touch" data showed the MEE in participants with high need for touch, which suggests different sensitivity or saturation levels of MEE.This different sensitivity or saturation levels might also reflect the effects of expertise on the haptic evaluation of objects.It seems that haptic and cross-modal MEEs are influenced by factors similar to those in the visual domain indicating a common cognitive basis.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of General Psychology and Methodology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. martina.jakesch@uni-bamberg.de

ABSTRACT

Background: Zajonc showed that the attitude towards stimuli that one had been previously exposed to is more positive than towards novel stimuli. This mere exposure effect (MEE) has been tested extensively using various visual stimuli. Research on the MEE is sparse, however, for other sensory modalities.

Methodology/principal findings: We used objects of two material categories (stone and wood) and two complexity levels (simple and complex) to test the influence of exposure frequency (F0 = novel stimuli, F2 = stimuli exposed twice, F10 = stimuli exposed ten times) under two sensory modalities (haptics only and haptics & vision). Effects of exposure frequency were found for high complex stimuli with significantly increasing liking from F0 to F2 and F10, but only for the stone category. Analysis of "Need for Touch" data showed the MEE in participants with high need for touch, which suggests different sensitivity or saturation levels of MEE.

Conclusions/significance: This different sensitivity or saturation levels might also reflect the effects of expertise on the haptic evaluation of objects. It seems that haptic and cross-modal MEEs are influenced by factors similar to those in the visual domain indicating a common cognitive basis.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus