A consistent finding in the literature concerning visual selection is that subjects spend more time viewing unfamiliar stimuli than familial stimuli. In the present investigation a procedure to measure competitive viewing times to familiar and unfamiliar stimuli was used. Results of the analyses of viewing times showed that the magnitude of the familiarity effect was a positive function of the duration of stimulus pre-exposure. In addition no differences were found in subjects' “preference” for familiar and unfamiliar stimuli as measured by “like-dislike” ratings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlyneD. E.Curiosity and exploration. Science, 1966, 153, 25–33.
2.
BerlyneD. E.Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 279–286.
3.
CantorG. N.Children's “like-dislike” ratings of familiarized and nonfamiliarized visual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1968, 6, 651–657.
4.
CantorG. N.KuboseS. K.Preschool children's ratings of familiarized and nonfamiliarized visual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1969, 8, 74–81.
5.
CantorJ. H.CantorG. N.Functions relating to children's observing behavior to amount and recency of stimulus familiarization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 859–863.
6.
FawT. T.NunnallyJ. C.The effects on eye movements of complexity, novelty, and affective tone. Perception and Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 263–267.
7.
FawT. T.NunnallyJ. C.The influence of stimulus incongruity on the familiarity effect in visual selection. Perception and Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 150–154.
8.
HuttC.Specific and diversive exploration. In ReeseH. W.LipsirtL. P. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 120–172.
9.
LemondL. C.NunnallyJ. C.The influence of incongruity and preexposure on the familiarity effect in visual selection of children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1974, 18, 373–381.
10.
NunnallyJ. C.LemondL. C.Exploratory behavior and human development. In ReeseH. W. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 59–109.
11.
NunnallyJ. C.LemondL. C.WilsonW. H.Studies of voluntary visual attention—theories, research methods and psychometric issues. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1977, 1, 203–218.
12.
SieboldJ. R.Children's rating responses as related to amount and recency of stimulus familiarization and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1972, 14, 257–264.
13.
WilsonW. H.NunnallyJ. C.A technique for producing highly complex visual stimuli. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1973, 5, 266–268.
14.
ZajoncR. B.Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1968, 9(2, Pt. 2).
15.
ZajoncR. B.SwapW. C.HarrisonA. A.RobertsP.Limiting conditions of the exposure effect: satiation relativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 384–391.
