Mere Exposure in Advertising: Why Attention Matters

The mere exposure effect, proposed by Zajonc (1968), is one of the most important mechanisms in psychology to explain how our attitudes change in relation to a stimulus.

Put simply, the more often we are exposed to something, the more positive our attitude toward that stimulus tends to become. Previous studies have shown that repeated exposure to banners and television commercials increases positive attitudes both toward the ads and toward the advertised brand (Fang et al., 2007; Yoo, 2008).

This makes the mere exposure effect especially relevant for marketing and, in particular, for brands’ visual communication.​

However, before applying this principle in campaigns, it is essential to consider a factor that is often underestimated: selective attention. Evidence in the literature indicates that attention not only filters what we perceive but also modulates how we emotionally evaluate the stimuli to which we are exposed (Raymond et al., 2003; Yagi et al., 2009; Huang & Hsieh, 2013).

In other words, it is not enough to expose the audience to an ad multiple times; it is necessary to understand where that audience’s attention is being directed within the ad itself.​

Selective attention: not everything that is exposed is processed​

Studies on selective attention show that the mere exposure effect does not occur uniformly for all elements of a complex visual stimulus.

Yagi et al. (2009), for example, presented participants with figures composed of two colored polygons, one red and one green, and asked them to pay attention to one or to both shapes. The results showed that the mere exposure effect was observed only for the polygons that had previously been selected by attention, that is, those that received attentional focus from the participants (Yagi et al., 2009).​

Complex advertising images: product, model, and the battle for attention​

This aspect becomes particularly relevant when we think about visual ads, which often include multiple elements such as the product, a model or celebrity, text, and background. In many cases, ads display photographs of female models alongside the commercial product.

In these scenarios, a crucial question arises for neuromarketing: where is the audience’s attention actually being directed?​

Research in attention psychology indicates that human faces capture attention in an almost obligatory way, even when they are not directly related to the task the person is performing (Sato & Kawahara, 2015). Furthermore, faces considered attractive are even harder to ignore than unattractive faces (Sui & Liu, 2009).

This means that, in an ad where the product and model appear together, it is quite likely that most of the initial attention will be directed to the model’s face rather than to the product.​

This dynamic has direct implications for the mere exposure effect in advertising. If attention is predominantly focused on the model, it is possible that the mere exposure effect will manifest more strongly in the evaluation of the model herself than in the evaluation of the advertised product.

In practical terms, the brand may be investing in media repetition but primarily strengthening the positive attitude toward the person portrayed, rather than toward the item it intends to sell.​

What the experiments show about attention and mere exposure​

A series of four experiments was conducted to investigate how the mere exposure effect manifests in different components of complex advertising images (Inoue et al., 2018).​

In Experiment 1, the goal was to verify whether repeated presentation of complex advertising images, composed of a product and a female model, would be sufficient to induce the mere exposure effect for the images as a whole.

The results suggested that repetition of these images increased positive evaluations of the complete ads, indicating the occurrence of the mere exposure effect at the global image level.​

Experiment 2 shifted the focus specifically to the model. In the exposure phase, participants repeatedly viewed the complete advertising images; later, they were asked to evaluate only the images of the female models.

The results indicated that when complex images containing a product and a female model are repeatedly presented, the mere exposure effect occurs for one component of the ad, in this case the model (Inoue et al., 2018).​

In Experiment 3, the authors investigated whether this same effect would manifest for the product. The procedure was similar: participants were exposed to the complete images in the exposure phase and then evaluated only the isolated product images.

The results suggested that, in complex images composed of product and female model, the mere exposure effect may not occur in the same way for all elements: the occurrence of the effect was significantly lower for the product component (Inoue et al., 2018).​

Finally, Experiment 4 sought to identify whether the difference observed between Experiments 2 and 3 was caused by the fact that attention had been predominantly captured by the model. The hypothesis was that the mere exposure effect on the product could occur if participants were instructed to direct their attention to this area during the exposure phase.

The results showed that, when the audience’s attention was explicitly directed to the product, the mere exposure effect began to occur for this component as well, even in the presence of the female model in the image (Inoue et al., 2018).​

An analysis comparing the magnitude of the effects between Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that the mere exposure effect was stronger when evaluated for the models than for the products. This illustrates how the competition for attention within a single ad can favor certain elements and, at the same time, reduce the impact of others, even when all of them are equally repeated.​

Why attention is indispensable for leveraging mere exposure in marketing​

The results of this set of studies show that simple repeated exposure to ads is not sufficient, in all cases, to guarantee the mere exposure effect. Attention plays a central role in the application of this effect in visual communication contexts. In Experiment 3, for example, the low occurrence of the effect for the product was attributed to the fact that attention had been captured by the female model. In Experiment 4, on the other hand, when attention was directed to the product, it became possible to observe the mere exposure effect even in the presence of the model in the scene (Inoue et al., 2018).​

This conclusion contrasts with the traditional view that repetition alone would be enough to induce a positive change in attitude toward repeatedly presented stimuli (Zajonc, 1968; Monahan et al., 2000). Instead, the results of Experiments 3 and 4 are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that mere repetition is not sufficient for the mere exposure effect to occur (Lee, 2001; Craver-Lemley & Bornstein, 2006; Yagi et al., 2009; Stafford & Grimes, 2012; De Zilva et al., 2013; Inoue et al., 2018).​

From the perspective of neuromarketing and ad design, this implies that the mere exposure effect should not be treated as a guaranteed “automatic shortcut.” It is necessary to carefully consider where the consumer’s gaze is drawn, which layout elements have the greatest attentional pull, and how the visual organization can be planned so that the product also benefits from repetition.

Studies using eye tracking in banners and print ads show that faces not only capture attention but also direct the viewer’s gaze to where they are looking; when the model looks at the product, attention and even purchase intention tend to focus more on it (Dojahn et al., 2017; Droulers & Adil, 2014; Face Presence and Gaze Direction in Print Advertisements, 2019).

Therefore, if you use a model in your ad, a simple and effective strategy is to position her gaze toward the product: in this way, in addition to capturing attention, the face also acts as a vector that guides the consumer’s gaze exactly to what matters most in the piece.​

Written by Guilherme Catarino

References

Zajonc, R. B. The attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Washington, v. 9, n. 2, p. 1-27, 1968.

Fang, X.; Singh, S.; Ahluwalia, R. An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research, Chicago, v. 34, n. 1, p. 97-103, 2007.​​

Yoo, C. Effects beyond click-through: incidental exposure to web advertisement. Journal of Marketing Communications, London, v. 14, n. 4, p. 335-356, 2008.​​

Raymond, J. E.; Fenske, M. J.; Tavassoli, N. T. Selective attention and valence evaluation. Psychological Science, Thousand Oaks, v. 14, n. 6, p. 537-542, 2003.​

Yagi, Y.; Ikoma, S.; Kikuchi, T.; Shibata, T.; Katayama, J. Effects of selective attention and feedback on mere exposure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Missoula, v. 109, n. 1, p. 207-224, 2009.​​

Huang, Y.-M.; Hsieh, S. The mere exposure effect is modulated by selective attention: evidence from event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, Amsterdam, v. 92, n. 2, p. 157-167, 2013.​​

Monahan, J. L.; Murphy, S. T.; Zajonc, R. B. Subliminal mere exposure: specific, general, and diffuse effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Washington, v. 69, n. 5, p. 862-873, 1995.

Inoue, Y. et al. The contribution of attention to the mere exposure effect for parts of advertising images. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v. 9, article 1635, 2018.​

Lee, A. Y. The mere exposure effect: an uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, New York, v. 27, n. 10, p. 1255-1266, 2001.​​

Craver-Lemley, C.; Bornstein, R. F. Self-generated visual imagery alters responses on the mere exposure paradigm. The Journal of Social Psychology, Philadelphia, v. 146, n. 3, p. 277-291, 2006.​​

Stafford, T.; Grimes, A. Memory for marketing communications: the role of attention, level of processing, and imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Washington, v. 18, n. 4, p. 358-370, 2012.​​

De Zilva, D. et al. A methodological and empirical critique of the mere exposure effect. Psychological Research, Berlin, v. 77, n. 2, p. 270-286, 2013.​​

Sato, W.; Kawahara, J. I. Selective bias in facial expression processing: an eye-tracking study. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, New York, v. 77, n. 2, p. 578-589, 2015. 

Sui, J.; Liu, C. H. Can beauty be ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on covert attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, New York, v. 16, n. 2, p. 276-281, 2009.​​

Dojahn, A. et al. Judgments at gaze value: gaze cuing in banner advertisements. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v. 8, article 881, 2017.

Droulers, O.; Adil, S. The influence of banner advertisements on attention and memory: human faces with averted gaze can enhance advertising effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v. 5, article 166, 2014.

Face presence and gaze direction in print advertisements: how they influence consumer responses – an eye-tracking study. Journal of Advertising Research, New York, v. 59, n. 3, p. 000–000, 2019.