This article offers a critical review of marketing research focused on the effects of supraliminal stimuli perceived in the absence of awareness. On the basis of findings emerging from the literature related to memory accessibility, likelihood of inclusion in the consideration set, evaluation and likelihood of consumer choice, we progressively derive 10 research proposals. Finally, we propose an integrated model and outline priority avenues for future research.
AcarA (2007) Testing the effects of incidental advertising exposure in online gaming environments. Journal of Interactive Advertising8(1): 1–36.
2.
AndersonJRBowerGH (1973) Human Associative Memory. Washington, DC: Winston.
3.
BergerJFitzsimonsGM (2008) Dogs on the street, Pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing Research45(1): 1–14.
4.
BiedermanIMezzanotteRJRabinowitzJC (1982) Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology14 (April): 143–177.
5.
BiedermanITeitelbaumRCMezzanotteR (1983) Scene perception: A failure to find a benefit from prior expectancy or familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition9 (July): 411–429.
6.
BiedermanIRabinowitzJCGlassALWebb StacyE (1974) On the information extracted from a glance at a scene. Journal of Experimental Psychology103 (September): 597–600.
7.
BlaxtonTA (1989) Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition15 (July): 657–668.
8.
BornsteinRFD’AgostinoPR (1992) Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63: 545–52.
9.
BornsteinRFD’AgostinoPR (1994) The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition12: 103–28.
10.
BoyceSJPollatsekA.RaynerK (1989) Effect of background information on object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance15 (August): 556–566.
11.
BrocaP (1865) Sur le siège de la faculté du langage articulé. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris6: 337–393.
12.
ButlerLTBerryDCHelmanS (2004) Dissociating mere exposure and repetition priming as a function of word type. Memory & Cognition32(5): 759–767.
13.
CollinsAMLoftusEF (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review82(6): 407–428.
14.
CorneilleO (2010) Nos préférences sous influences. Déterminants psychologiques de nos préférences et choix. Brussels: Mardaga.
15.
CourbetDVanhueleMLavigneF (2008a) Les effets persuasifs de l’epublicité perçue sans conscience en vision périphérique. Implications pour les recherches sur la réception des médias. Questions de Communication14: 197–219.
16.
CourbetDFourquet-CourbetM-PIntartagliaJ (2008b) Publicité sur Internet: que reste-t-il des images, trois mois après en mémoire implicite?Revue des Interactions Humaines Médiatisées19(1): 1–24.
17.
CurranTHintzmanDL (1995) Violations of the independence assumption in process dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21(3): 531–547.
18.
D’YdewalleGTamsinF (1993) On the visual processing and memory of incidental information: Advertising panel in soccer games. Visual Search2: 401–408.
19.
DehaeneSChangeuxJ-PNaccacheLSackurJSergentC (2006) Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences10: 204–211.
20.
DerbaixCFilserM (2011) L’affectif dans les comportements d’achat et de consommation. Paris: Economica.
21.
DerbaixCGrégoryP (2004) Persuasion: La Théorie de l’Irrationalité Restreinte, Paris, Economica.
22.
DroulersO (2004) Les marques traitées sans attention: expérimentations et modélisation des effets. In:Actes du 20ème Congrès International de l’Association Française du Marketing, Saint-Malo, France.
23.
DroulersORoulletB (2007) Emergence du neuromarketing: apports et perspectives pour les praticiens et les chercheurs. Décisions Marketing46: 9–22.
24.
FangXSinghSAhluwaliaR (2007) An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research34: 97–103.
25.
FazioRHSanbonmatsuDMPowellMCKardesFR (1986) On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50(2): 229–238.
26.
FelserG (2007) Werbe- und Konsumentenpsychologie. Heidelberg: Spektrum.
27.
FennisBMStroebeW (2010) The Psychology of Advertising. Hove: Psychology Press.
28.
FerraroRBettmanJRChartrandTL (2009) The power of strangers: The effect of incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research35(5): 729–41.
29.
FontaineI (2006) Etude du changement d’attitude pour les marques placées dans les films: persuasion ou effet d’exposition?Recherche et Applications en Marketing21(1): 1–18.
30.
GreenwaldAGLeavittC (1984) Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research11: 581–592.
31.
GrégoryP (1993) Notes sur la persuasion subliminale: quelques acquis de la recherche marketing pour éclairer un mythe. Recherche et Applications en Marketing8(3): 79–94.
32.
GrimesAKitchenPJ (2007) Researching mere exposure effect to advertising: Theoretical foundations and methodological implications. International Journal of Market Research49(2): 191–219.
33.
HamannSB (1990) Level-of-processing effects in conceptually driven implicit tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16: 970–77.
34.
HendersonJM (1992) Object identification in context: The visual processing of natural scenes. Canadian Journal of Psychology46 (September): 319–341.
35.
HendersonJMPollatsekARaynerK (1987) Effects of foveal priming and extrafoveal preview on object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance13 (August): 449–463.
36.
HerrmannJ-LCorneilleODerbaixCKachaMWalliserB (2014, in press) Implicit sponsorship effects for a prominent brand. European Journal of Marketing48: 3/4.
37.
HolenderD (1986) Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual masking: A survey and appraisal. Behavioral and Brain Sciences9 (March): 1–23.
38.
JacobyLL (1991) A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language30(5): 513–541.
39.
JacobyLLDallasM (1981) On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General3: 306–40.
40.
JaniszewskiC (1988) Preconscious processing effects: The independence of attitude formation and conscious thought. Journal of Consumer Research15(2): 199–209.
41.
JaniszewskiC (1990a) The influence of print advertisement organization on affect toward a brand name. Journal of Consumer Research17: 53–65.
42.
JaniszewskiC (1990b) The influence of nonattended material on the processing of advertising claims. Journal of Marketing Research27: 263–278.
43.
JaniszewskiC (1993) Preattentive mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research20(3): 376–392.
44.
JohnsonBEaglyAH (1989) Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin106: 290–314.
45.
KochC (2004) The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach. Englewood, CO: Roberts & Company.
46.
KouiderSDehaeneS (2007) Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: A critical review of visual masking. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B362: 857–875.
47.
LardinoitT (1996) Etude de l’efficacité du parrainage sportif. Effet modérateur des implications durable et situationnelle pour un sport. Doctoral thesis, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve, France.
48.
LeeALabrooA (2004) Effects of conceptual and perceptual fluency on affective judgment. Journal of Marketing Research41: 151–165.
49.
LeeAY (2002) Effects of implicit memory on memory-based versus stimulus-based brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research39(4): 440–454.
50.
LeeMPY (2001) Low involvement processing: Effects of stimulus exposure and repetition on implicit memory, explicit memory and affect. Doctoral thesis, Rotmann School of Management, Université de Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
51.
MarcelAJ (1983) Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology15: 197–237.
52.
MarkusHRKitayamaS (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review98: 224–53.
53.
MatthesJSchemerCWirthW (2007) More than meets the eye: Investigating the hidden impact of brand placements in television magazines. International Journal of Advertising26(4): 477–503.
54.
MilosavljevicMCerfM (2008) First attention then intention: Insights from computational neuroscience of vision. International Journal of Advertising27(3): 381–398.
55.
OppenheimerDM (2008) The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences12(6): 237–241.
56.
PêtreA (2005) Mémorisation non consciente des publicités: apport d’une mesure implicite dans une application au netvertising. Revue Française du Marketing201(1/5): 23–49.
57.
PhamMTVanhueleM (1997) Analyzing the memory impact of advertising fragments. Marketing Letters8(4): 407–417.
58.
PietersRWedelM (2004) Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial and text size effects. Journal of Marketing68(2): 36–50.
59.
PietersRWedelM (2007) Goal control of attention to advertising: The Yarbus implication, Journal of Consumer Research34(2): 224–233
60.
ReberRWinkielmanPSchwartzN (1998) Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science29(1): 45–48.
61.
SauerlandMFelserGKrajewskiJ (2012) The effects of incidental ad exposure on consumption-enhancing and consumption-critical processes. Psychology and Marketing29(10): 782–790.
62.
SchacterDL (1987) Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition13(3): 501–518.
63.
ShapiroS (1999) When an ad’s influence is beyond our conscious contrsol: Perceptual and conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental ad exposure. Journal of Consumer Research26(1): 16–36.
64.
ShapiroSKrishnanHS (2001) Memory-based measures for assessing advertising effects: A comparison of explicit and implicit memory effects. Journal of Advertising30(3): 1–13.
65.
ShapiroSMacInnisDJ (1992) Mapping the relationship between preattentive processing and attitudes. In: SherryJSternthalB (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, 19. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp.505–513.
66.
ShapiroSMacInnisDJHecklerSE (1997) The effects of incidental ad exposure on the formation of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research24: 94–104.
67.
SingelisTM (1994) The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin20: 580–591.
TrendelOWarlopL (2005) Présentation et applications des mesures implicites de restitution mémorielle en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing20(2): 77–104.
70.
TulvingESchacterDL (1990) Priming and human memory systems. Science247: 301–306.
71.
VerwijmerenTKarremansJCStroebeWWigboldusDHJ (2011) The workings and limits of subliminal advertising: The role of habits. Journal of Consumer Psychology21(2): 206–213.
72.
WangJ-CDayR-F (2007) The effects of attention inertia on advertisements on the WWW.Computers in Human Behavior23: 1390–1407.
73.
WedelMPietersR (2000) Eye fixations on advertisements and memory for brands: A model and findings. Marketing Science19(4): 297–312.
74.
WedelMPietersR (2007) A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. In: MalhotraN(ed.) Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 4. New York: ME Sharpe, pp.123–146.
75.
WhittleseaBWA (1993) Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19(6): 1235–1253.
76.
WhittleseaBWAWilliamsL (1998) Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t: The unexpected basis of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica98: 141–166.
77.
WhittleseaBWAWilliamsL (2001a) The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition27: 3–13.
78.
WhittleseaBWAWilliamsL (2001b) The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition27: 14–33.
79.
WinkielmanP.CacioppoJT (2001) Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81: 989–1013.
80.
WinkielmanPSchwarzNFazendeiroTAReberR (2003) The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In: MuschJKlauerKC (eds) The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.189–217.
81.
YooCY (2009) Effects beyond click-through: Incidental exposure to web advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications15(4): 227–246.
