THE ATTITUDINAL EFFECTS
OF MERE EXPOSURE
by
Robert B. Zajonc
T e c h n i c a l Report No. 34
September, 1965
institute for Social Research
Library
RESEARCH CENTER FOR GROUP DYNAMICS
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n
Zaj one
Abstract
The h y p o t h e s i s i s o f f e r e d t h a t mere r e p e a t e d exposure
of the
i n d i v i d u a l t o a s t i m u l u s o b j e c t enhances h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d i t .
"mere" exposure
By
i s meant a c o n d i t i o n making t h e s t i m u l u s a c c e s s i b l e
t o the i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception.
Support f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s c o n s i s t s
o f f o u r t y p e s o f e v i d e n c e , p r e s e n t e d and r e v i e w e d :
(a) the c o r r e l a t i o n
between a f f e c t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n o f words and w o r d - f r e q u e n c y ;
(b) the
e f f e c t o f e x p e r i m e n t a l l y m a n i p u l a t e d f r e q u e n c y o f exposure upon t h e
a f f e c t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n o f nonsense words and symbols;
( c ) the c o r r e l a -
t i o n between w o r d - f r e q u e n c y and t h e a t t i t u d e t o t h e i r r e f e r e n t s ;
(d) the a f f e c t s o f experimentally manipulated frequency o f
on a t t i t u d e .
'
exposure
The r e l e v a n c e f o r t h e e x p o s u r e - a t t i t u d e h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e
s t i m u l u s s a t i a t i o n t h e o r y , o f t h e d i s c r e p a n c y t h e o r y , and o f t h e
semantic s a t i a t i o n f i n d i n g s were examined.
The A t t i t u d i n a l E f f e c t s o f Mere E x p o s u r e
Robert B.
1
Zajonc
The U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n
T h i s p a p e r examines t h e g e n e r a l h y p o t h e a i o t h a t mora r e p e a t e d
exposure o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o a s t i m u l u s i s a s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r
t h e enhancement o f h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d i t .
By "mere exposure" I mean a
c o n d i t i o n w h i c h j u s t makes t h e g i v e n s t i m u l u s a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e
individual's perception.
Even t h o u g h t h e hypothesis- seems t o be i n c o n f l i c t w i t h such
cele-
b r a t e d laws as F a m i l i a r i t y breeds contempt and Absence makes t h e h e a r t
grow f o n d e r , i t i s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y o r i g i n a l or- r e c e n t (Fechner, 1876,
pp. 240-243; James, 1890, p. 672; Maslow, 1937; Meyer, 1903; Pepper, 1 9 1 9 ) .
i
The f o r e m o s t proponent o f t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , t h e a d v e r t i s i n g I n d u s t r y , has
always a t t r i b u t e d t o exposure f o r m i d a b l e a d v e r t i s i n g p o t e n t i a l .
But—
a p p a r e n t l y , i n r e s p e c t f o r t h e l a w o f enhancement by a s s o c i a t i o n — i t
dared t o u t i l i z e mere exposure.
seldom
The p r o d u c t , i t s name, o r i t s h a l l m a r k ,
a r e always p r e s e n t e d t o t h e p u b l i c i n c o n t i g u i t y w i t h most a t t r a c t i v e
stimuli.
A t t h e same t i m e , however, t h e a d v e r t i s i n g i n d u s t r y a l s o
likes
t o warn a g a i n s t o v e r e x p o s u r e , r e l y i n g , i t w o u l d appear, on t h e above law
o f f a m i l i a r i t y ( E r d e l y i , 1940; Wiebe, 1940).
I t i s n ' t a l t o g e t h e r c l e a r j u s t what e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e s e advertising principles.
And d i r e c t evidence t h a t a t t i t u d e s are enhanced by
mere exposure o r mere c o n t a c t w i t h t h e s t i m u l u s o b j e c t i s s c a n t .
Moreover,
i t i s t h e p r o d u c t o f a n t i q u a t e d methods, and a l m o s t a l l o f i t concerns
Zajonc
2.
music a p p r e c i a t i o n (Downey £ Knapp, 1927; Krugman, 1943; Meyer, 1903;
Moore £ G i l l i l a n d , 1924; M u l l , 1957; V e r v e e r , B a r r y , £ B o u s f i e l d , 1933;
Washburn, C h i l d , £ A b e l , 1927).
The problem o f a t t i t u d i n a l c o n t a c t e f f e c t
has a l s o been o f some i n t e r e s t i n t h e s t u d y o f i n t e r r a c i a l
(Cook £ S e l l t i z , 1952).
attitudes
But t h o s e s t u d i e s have i n v a r i a b l y examined t h e
e f f e c t s n o t o f mere c o n t a c t between p e o p l e , b u t o f processes c o n s i d e r a b l y
more complex:
p r o l o n g e d s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , group
interdependence,
c o o p e r a t i o n , e t c . , (Deutsch £ C o l l i n s , 1 9 5 1 ; Kramer, 1950; MacKenzie, 1948
W i l n e r , Walkley £ Cook, 1952).
A l t h o u g h t h e independent v a r i a b l e s i n
t h e s e s t u d i e s have g e n e r a l l y been f e a t u r e d under t h e l a b e l s " c o n t a c t " and
"exposure:, t h e e f f e c t s t h e y r e p o r t c a n n o t , because o f c o n f o u n d i n g w i t h
a m u l t i t u d e o f o t h e r e v e n t s , and w i t h r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n p a r t i c u l a r , be r e garded as produced alone by c o n t a c t o r exposure.
Thus, i t has been
known f o r some t i m e t h a t s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n enhances t h e a t t i t u d e s o f
i n t e r a c t o r s t o w a r d each o t h e r ( B o v a r d , 1 9 5 1 ; F e s t i n g e r , 1951; Homans,
1961; Newcomb, 1963).
But i t i s n o t known j u s t what c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and a t t i t u d e s i s made by mere
exposure
on t h e one hand, and by t h e v a r i e t y o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y
cant processes t h a t accompany mere exposure
signifi-
d u r i n g t h e course o f s o c i a l
i n t e r a c t i o n , on t h e o t h e r ,
The main e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e exposure h y p o t h e s i s comes, t h e r e f o r e , n o t f r o m work on i n t e r a c t i o n , i n t e r r a c i a l a t t i t u d e s , o r a t t i t u d e s
i n g e n e r a l , b u t f r o m an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t and seemingly u n r e l a t e d a r e a
of research.
I t comes f r o m some r e c e n t work on word f r e q u e n c i e s .
r e c e n t r e s e a r c h shows t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s an i n t i m a t e
relationship
This
between
Zajonc
3.
word f r e q u e n c y and meaning.
And t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n my o p i n i o n ( f o r
which I s h a l l l a t e r p r e s e n t s u p p o r t ) , i s a s p e c i a l case o f t h e more g e n e r a l
r e l a t i o n s h i p between mere exposure and a t t i t u d e enhancement.
The s t r e n g t h and p e r v a s i v e n e s s
o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between word
f r e q u e n c y and m e a n i n g — t h e e v a l u a t i v e aspect o f meaning, i n p a r t i c u l a r i s t r u l y remarkable.
I f t h e r e i s any correspondence between t h e frequency
w i t h which words are used and t h e a c t u a l preponderance o f t h e t h i n g s and
events f o r which t h e s e words s t a n d , t h e n we may c o n g r a t u l a t e o u r s e l v e s on
l i v i n g i n a most happy w o r l d .
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e T h o r n d i k e - L o r g e count
( 1 9 4 4 ) , t h e word HAPPINESS occurs 761 t i m e s , UNHAPPINESS occurs o n l y 49
times.
BEAUTY i s t o be found a t l e a s t 4 1 t i m e s as o f t e n as UGLINESS, and
WEALTH outdoes POVERTY b y a f a c t o r o f 1.6.
We,LAUGH 2.4 t i m e s as o f t e n
as we CRY; we LOVE almost seven t i m e s more o f t e n t h a n we HATE; we are 111
at
l e a s t f i v e t i m e s more o f t e n t h a n we a r e OUTj UP t w i c e as o f t e n as we
a r e DOWN; much more o f t e n SUCCESSFUL t h a n UNSUCCESSFUL; and we FIND t h i n g s
4.5
t i m e s more o f t e n t h a n we LOSE them - a l l because most o f us are LUCKY
(220) r a t h e r t h a n UNLUCKY ( 1 7 ) .
We have a l l t h e reasons i n t h e w o r l d t o be HAPPY (1449) and GAY (418)
(202)
r a t h e r t h a n SAD/and GLOOMY ( 7 2 ) , f o r t h i n g s are f i v e t i m e s more o f t e n
GOOD t h a n BAD,
almost t h r e e t i m e s more o f t e n POSSIBLE t h a n IMPOSSIBLE, and
about f i v e t i m e s more PROFITABLE t h a n UNPROFITABLE.
why
That i s , p e r h a p s ,
BOOM and PROSPERITY o u t d o RECESSION b y a f a c t o r o f j u s t about
thirty,
ABUNDANCE outdoes SCARCITY by a t l e a s t t h r e e t o one, and AFFLUENCE i s s i x
t i m e s more p r e v a l e n t t h a n DEPRIVATION.
C a t e r i n g t o our c o r p o r e a l s e n s i -
b i l i t i e s , t h i n g s are t h r e e times more o f t e n FRAGRANT t h a n t h e y are FOUL,
Zajonc
t w e l v e t i m e s more o f t e n FRESH t h a n STALE., and a l m o s t seven t i m e s more
o f t e n SWEET t h a n SOUR, and e v e r y t h i n g t h a t can be f i l l e d i s t h r e e t i m e s
as o f t e n FULL as i t i s EMPTY.
I f we have a n y t h i n g we have MORE o f i t s i x
t i m e s more o f t e n t h a n we have LESS o f i t , and t h r e e t i m e s more o f t e n
MOST o f i t t h a n LEAST o f i t .
And
more o f are f i v e t i m e s more o f t e n
thing3
theco
BETTER
t h a t we have so f r e q u e n t l y
t h a n t h e y a r e WORSE, s i x t i m e s
more o f t e n BEST t h a n WORST, and f o u r t i m e s more o f t e n SUPERIOR t h a n
INFERIOR.
S t i l l , t h e y IMPROVE a t l e a s t t w e n t y - f i v e t i m e s as o f t e n as
t h e y DETERIORATE.
These examples s u f f i c e t o c o n v i n c e one t h a t t h e w o r l d r e p r e s e n t e d
by a one-to-one correspondence w i t h w o r d - f r e q u e n c i e s
spectacular.
i s as u n r e a l as i t i s
B i t t e r l y aware o f i t , S a r t r e (1964) confessed i n h i s a u t o -
b i o g r a p h y , "...as a r e s u l t o f d i s c o v e r i n g t h e w o r l d t h r o u g h language, f o r
a l o n g t i m e , I t o o k language f o r t h e w o r l d " ( p . 1 8 2 ) .
B u t , w h i l e t h e y are u n f a i t h f u l i n r e p r e s e n t i n g r e a l i t y ,
are e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y a c c u r a t e i n r e p r e s e n t i n g r e a l v a l u e s :
word-frequencies
words t h a t
s t a n d f o r good, d e s i r a b l e , and p r e f e r r e d aspects o f r e a l i t y a r e more
f r e q u e n t l y used.
I t i s n ' t e n t i r e l y c l e a r who d i s c o v e r e d t h i s remarkable
relationship
between w o r d - f r e q u e n c y and t h e e v a l u a t i v e d i m e n s i o n o f word meaning.
Postman (1953) seems t o be one o f t h e e a r l y workers t o n o t e i t s g e n e r a l i t y ,
w h i l e Howes and Solomon (1950) o b s e r v e d i n t h e i r c r i t i q u e o f McGinnias'
(1949) p e r c e p t u a l defense e x p e r i m e n t t h a t t h e s o - c a l l e d " t a b o o " words he
used as s t i m u l i , a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n f r e q u e n t .
a t i c r e s e a r c h e f f o r t t h a t demonstrates
However, t h e f i r s t
the word-frequency
system-
word-value
5.
Zajone
r e l a t i o n s h i p i s due t o Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e ( 1 9 6 0 ) .
These
a u t h o r s were t h e f i r s t t o c o l l e c t e m p i r i c a l d a t a showing t h a t words w i t h
" p o s i t i v e " meaning have h i g h e r f r e q u e n c y
meanings.
counts t h a n words w i t h " n e g a t i v e "
They have a l s o g a t h e r e d e x p e r i m e n t a l evidence
showing t h a t t h e
r e p e a t e d use o f a nonsense word tends t o enhance i t s r a t i n g on t h e
GOOD-BAD s c a l e o f t h e semantic
differential.
Johnson, Thomson, and
have n o t t r i e d t o e x p l a i n e i t h e r o f t h e s e two aspects o f t h e
Frincke
frequency-value
r e l a t i o n s h i p , b e i n g p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e
study o f word-recognition t h r e s h o l d s .
T h i s paper examines t h e f r e q u e n c y - v a l u e r e l a t i o n s h i p , p r o p o s i n g t h a t
i t i s c o n s i d e r a b l y more p e r v a s i v e and g e n e r a l t h a n i m p l i e d b y t h e
Johnson-Thomson-Frincke r e s u l t s , and t h a t i t i s - , moreover, a s p e c i a l case
o f a b r o a d e r and more b a s i c phenomenon;
by mere r e p e a t e d e x p o s u r e .
I shall f i r s t
t h e enhancement o f a t t i t u d e s
r e v i e w evidence
on t h e c o r -
r e l a t i o n between word f r e q u e n c y and word v a l u e , and between s t i m u l u s , <
f r e q u e n c y and a t t i t u d e .
Experimental evidence
on t h e s e "two r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,
1
and o n t h e l i k e l y c a u s a l d i r e c t i o n w i l l t h e n be examined.
Word Frequency^Wprd V a l u e :
C o r r e l a t i o n a l Evidence
Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e ( 1 9 6 0 ) o b t a i n e d c o r r e l a t i o n s o f .63,
.40, and .38 b e t w e e n t h e L-cOurit ( T h o m d i k e 6 L o r g e , 1944) and
the
GOOD-BAD s c a l e V a l u e s f o r t h r e e samples o f randomly chosen words.
f u r t h e r attempt*, $hevy - c o n s t r u c t e d 30 p a i r s each c o n s i s t i n g o f one
and one i n f r e q u e n t *wor&.
the
fthese
In a
frequent
p a i r s were g i v e n t o a group o f Ss w i t h
i n s t r u c t i o n s to. " e n c i r c l e the most p l e a s a s a t l y t o n e d word o f each p a i r * .
L
J n 87% o f t h e p a i r s t h e ' m a j o r i t y o f Ss e n d o r s e d t h e more f r e q u e n t word.
1
Zajone
F i n a l l y , 64 nonsense s y l l a b l e s o f l o w , medium, and h i g h a s s o c i a t i o n were r a t e d by a group o f Ss on t h e GOOD-BAD s c a l e o f t h e semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l .
Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e r e p o r t a c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s s o c i a t i o n v a l u e and "GOODNESS r a t i n g s .
11
the
The r a t i o n a l e o f t h i s s t u d y i n v o k e d
assumed r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e g i v e n nonsense
s y l l a b l e and t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence
o f t h e corresponding
letter
c o m b i n a t i o n i n m e a n i n g f u l words (Underwood, 1959)..
In
the
an a t t e m p t t o examine t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f t h i s phenomenon we s t u d i e d
s c a l e v a l u e s o f 154 antonym p a i r s . ' F i r s t , a l a r g e p o o l o f antonym
p a i r s was amassed.
From t h i s p o o l a l l s y m m e t r i c p a i r s were chosen I n t h e
3
i
f o l l o w i n g manner.
F o r each antonym p a i r t e n j u d g e s , one a t a t i m e , were
asked t o g i v e t h e antonym o f one member o f t h e p a i r .
Ten o t h e r j u d g e s —
independently o f t h e f i r s t
t e n — w e r e asked t o g i v e t h e antonym o f t h e
o t h e r member o f t h e p a i r .
Only those p a i r s were r e t a i n e d about w h i c h i t h e
t w e n t y judges showed unanimous agreement w i t h t h e d i c t i o n a r y sources.*
A l i s t o f 154 antonym p a i r s was t h u s o b t a i n e d .
These were g i v e n t o 100
Ss, a l l c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , f o r judgments as t o whichi member had " t h e more
f a v o r a b l e meaning, r e p r e s e n t e d t h e more d e s i r a b l e o b j e c t , e v e n t , s t a t e
of
a f f a i r s , characteristic, etc.".
A d i f f e r e n t random o r d e r o f t h e
antonym p a i r s was g i v e n t o each S_, and t h e l a t e r a l ! p o s i t i o n s o f t h e memb e r s o f each p a i r were r e v e r s e d a t random f o r - h a l f o f t h e group.
Table 1 shows t h e l i s t
o f t h e s e 154 antonym pairs., t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e
I n s e r t Table 1 about
here
^ d e s i r a b i l i t y " and t h e f r e q u e n c y d a t a ( t h e T h o m d i k e - L o r g e L - c o u n t ) . The
Zajone
7.
p r e f e r r e d member o f each p a i r i s always l i s t e d f i r s t .
f i g u r e s are s i m p l y t h e p e r c e n t a g e s o f s u b j e c t s
The " d e s i r a b i l i t y "
c h o o s i n g t h e l e f t mem-
b e r o f t h e p a i r as t h e p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e .
I t i s o f some i n t e r e s t , however i n c i d e n t a l , t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e agreement ^about d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e meanings.
the
agreement exceeded 95 p e r c e n t .
which are not genuinely e v a l u a t i v e .
On h a l f o f t h e items
Agreement i s h i g h even f o r words
F o r i n s t a n c e , " §7 o f t h e 100 s t u d e n t s
p r e f e r r e d ON t o OFF, 98 p r e f e r r e d ADD t o .'SUBTRACT, 96 ABOVE t o BELOW,
and 92 UPWARD t o DOWNWARD.
For t h e Overwhelming m a j o r i t y o f t h e i t e m s t h e p r e f e r r e d word i s
a l s o t h e more f r e q u e n t one.
Only 28 o f t h e 154 antonym p a i r s ( 1 8 p e r c e n t )
show a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between frequency, and d e s i r a b i l i t y .
Moreover,
t h e s e " r e v e r s a l s " o c c u r p r i m a r i l y f o r antonym p a i r s o n w h i c h t h e r e i s
relatively
little
agreement.
F o r p a i r s w i t h agreement g r e a t e r t h a n 35
percent ( i . e . , t h e upper h a l f o f t h e l i s t )
o u t o f t h e 77 p o s s i b l e .
t h e r e are -only s i x r e v e r s a l s
I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n t h r e e o f these s i x
antonym p a i r s , t h e l e s s d e s i r a b l e member ( w h i c h i n t h e s e cases i s t h e more
f r e q u e n t one) has more meanings and l i n g u i s t i c uses t h a n t h e more
d e s i r a b l e one.
j u s t VALID.
INVALID means b o t h NOT VALID and CRIPPLE, b u t VALID i s
EARLY i s o n l y an a d j e c t i v e , w h i l e LATE i s b o t h an a d j e c t i v e
and an a d v e r b .
FRONT i s a noun, a v e r b , and an a d j e c t i v e , w h i l e BACK i s
a l l t h a t and an adverb t o b o o t .
Toward t h e e n d o f t h e l i s t where t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y p r e f e r e n c e s a r e
d i v i d e d f a i r l y e v e n l y between t h e t w o members o f t h e antonym p a i r s , t h e
f r e q u e n c i e s o f t h e t w o antonyms o f t e n a r e n e a r l y t h e same.
PLAY i s
Zaj one
8.
p r e f e r r e d t o WORK o n l y by a m a j o r i t y o f t w o { a sad commentary on t h e
contemporary c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n ! ) and t h e r e s p e c t i v e frequency counts o f
t h e s e antonyms a r e 2606 and 2720.
The HOT-COLD p r e f e r e n c e i s 55 t o 45 and
t h e i r frequency counts 1006 and 1092.
The HUSBAND-WIFE p r e f e r e n c e i s 58
t o 42 and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s 1788 and 166 8.
Three antonym i t e m s about which agreement was complete o r n e a r l y
complete show a c u r i o u s p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s .
BETTER-WORSE ( 2 3 5 4 : 4 5 0 ) ,
They a r e GOOD-BAD (5122:1001),
and BEST-WORST (1850:292).
S i n c e BETTER i s
presumably b e t t e r t h a n GOOD, WORSE worse t h a n BAD, and s i n c e BEST i s
presumably b e t t e r t h a n BETTER, and WORST worse t h a n WORSE, we would jexpect
t h e g r e a t e s t s e p a r a t i o n between t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f BEST and WORST, [
i
s m a l l e s t between t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f BEST and WORST, s m a l l e s t between t h e
f r e q u e n c i e s o f GOOD and BAD, and medium between t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f BETTER
and WORSE.
Since a b s o l u t e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e d e c e i v i n g , we b e s t t a k e t h e
r a t i o s o f t h e f r e q u e n c i e s , w h i c h a r e 6.34,
.BETTER-WORSE, and GOOD-BAD r e s p e c t i v e l y .
5.23,
and 5.12 f o r BEST-WORST,
I t i s i n d e e d t h e case t h a t t h e
f r e q u e n c y r a t i o s i n c r e a s e from GOOD-BAD t o BEST-WORSE.
However, i f
f r e q u e n c y r e f l e c t s " d e s i r a b i l i t y , we w o u l d a l s o e x p e c t t h e f r e q u e n c y o f
1 1
BEST t o exceed t h e f r e q u e n c y o f BETTER, and t h a t o f BETTER t o exceed t h e
f r e q u e n c y o f GOOD.
I n f a c t , GOOD i s more f r e q u e n t t h a n BETTER, and BETTER
mora f r e q u e n t t h a n BEST!
B u t i s BETTER b e t t e r t h a n GOOD?
I n an e x t e n s i v e
s t u d y o f meanings M o s i e r (1941) f o u n d t h a t GOOD was c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d
as b e t t e r t h a n BETTER.
Mosier says, " i t
" S t a r t l i n g as t h i s may appear t o grammarians"
i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y s o u n d , s i n c e GOOD i s a p o s i t i v e a s -
s e r t i o n , whereas BETTER i m p l i e s comparison w i t h some s t a n d a r d which
might,
Zajonc
9.
i n many cases, be i t s e l f u n f a v o r a b l e .
Compare t h e o f t e n h e a r d comment,
'He i s g e t t i n g b e t t e r , b u t he i s s t i l l f a r from good
For purposes o f comparison t h e f r e q u e n c i e s
1
" ( p . 134),
o f F r e n c h , German, and
Spanish e q u i v a l e n t s o f some o f t h e antonyms examined a r e g i v e n i n Table 2 b e —
low.
I n s e r t T a b l e 2 about here
S y s t e m a t i c d a t a on i n d i g e n o u s
d e s i r a b i l i t y r a t i n g s are u n f o r t u n a t e l y not
a v a i l a b l e , b u t i t w o u l d be s u r p r i s i n g I f t h e F r e n c h , German, and Spanish
judgments d i f f e r e d f r o m t h o s e o b t a i n e d
i n the United States.
i n q u i r y among f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s m a r s h a l l e d
conjecture.
striking.
An i n f o r m a l
a good d e a l o f s u p p o r t foi? t h i s
Comparing t h e d a t a i n T a b l e s 1 and 2, t h e agreement i s r a t h e r
I n 15 o u t o f t h e 44 cases t h e f r e q u e n c y r e l a t i o n i n t h e
antonym p a i r s i s t h e same i n t h e t h r e e f o r e i g n languages as i n E n g l i s h :
t h e more f a v o r a b l e i t e m i s more f r e q u e n t , a r e s u l t e x c e e d i n g chance
e x p e c t a t i o n by a l a r g e m a r g i n .
a ready expression
The r e s u l t s i n Table 2, f u r t h e r m o r e ,
t o ourf a v o r i t e ethnic prejudices.
give
The r e l a t i v e l y
low f r e q u e n c y o f t h e two Romance e q u i v a l e n t s o f EARLY and t h e h i g h f r e q u e n c y
o f t h e s e e q u i v a l e n t s o f LATE, i n comparison t o t h e i r - G e r m a n i c
counter-
p a r t s , make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r t e m p t i n g , as does
t h e r e l a t i v e l y l o w f r e q u e n c y o f t h e German e q u i v a l e n t o f REWARD. The
f o r e i g n e q u i v a l e n t s o f ANSWER-QUESTION, HOT-COLD, IMPORT-EXPORT, PEACE-WAR,
e t c . , however, show p a t t e r n s o f d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t may r e f l e c t more t h a n
superficial l i n g u i s t i c idiosyncrasies.
Several questions
can i m m e d i a t e l y
F i r s t , a r e these f i g u r e s up t o date?
be r a i s e d about t h e above r e s u l t s .
The T h o r n d i k e - L o r g e count I s based
Zajonc
10
on samples o f m a t e r i a l p u b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e l a t e t w e n t i e s and t h e e a r l y
thirties.
The
German e q u i v a l e n t s come f r o m a source d a t i n g t o t h e l a t e
n i n e t e e n t h Century ( K a d i n g , 1898).
1929
The French count was p u b l i s h e d i n
(Van d e r Beke, 1 9 2 9 ) , and t h e Spanish i n 1927
(Buchanan, 1 9 2 7 ) .
S e c o n d l y , do these r e s u l t s r e f l e c t g e n e r a l v o r b a l h a b i t s ?
are based on p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l a l o n e .
Word c o u n t s
Do p e o p l e show t h e same l i n g u i s t i c
p r e d i l e c t i o n s i n o r d i n a r y speech as t h e y do i n w r i t i n g ?
Admittedly, both
q u e s t i o n s i n d i c a t e c a u t i o n i n g e n e r a l i z i n g f r o m t h e above r e s u l t s . B u t
t h i s c a u t i o n needn't be e x c e s s i v e .
Howes (1954) has r e c e n t l y asked
H a r v a r d and A n t i o c h u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t o e s t i m a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f fthe
v a r i o u s words.
The
c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e s t u d e n t s ' e s t i m a t e s o f
s e v e r a l word samples and t h e L-count o f t h e Thorndlke-Lorge s o u r c e
v a r i e d around .80.
There i s a l s o e v i d e n c e f r o m word a s s o c i a t i o n s t u d i o s
w h i c h shows t h a t word c o u n t s do r e f l e c t g e n e r a l v e r b a l h a b i t s o f t h e
population.
A word w h i c h has a h i g h f r e q u e n c y
also a h i g h l y probable
associate.
The a s s o c i a t i o n norms t o 200 words
were r e c e n t l y c o l l e c t e d by Palermo and J e n k i n s
4,500 s c h o o l c h i l d r e n and
o f occurrence i n p r i n t i s
(1964) from a sample o f
college students i n Minneapolis.
The
list
of
t h e 200 s t i m u l u s words r e p r e s e n t s a s y s t e m a t i c sample o f v e r b s , n o u n s ,
pronouns, adverbs, a d j e c t i v e s , p a r t i c i p l e s , e t c . , a l l having
high frequency
on t h e T h o m d i k e - L o r g e c o u n t s .
fairly
Since i n t h e word a s s o c i -
a t i o n t a s k each s u b j e c t makes one response t o each s t i m u l u s w o r d , Palermo
and J e n k i n s
c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e i r s u b j e c t s 900,000 word r e s p o n s e s .
them GOOD o c c u r r e d -4890 t i m e s , BAD o n l y 1956.
The
g i v e n 477 t i m e s , t h e response WRONG o n l y 100 t i m e s .
Among
response RIGHT was
FULL was
found
431
11.
Zaj one
t i m e s among t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s , EMPTY o n l y 62 t i m e s .
WEAK 96 t i m e s .
STRONG was' g i v e n
TOGETHER o c c u r r e d 575 t i m e s , APART 29 t i m e s .
557,
LIGHT was
a response 8655 t i m e s (n.t^. some s u b j e c t s must have g i v e n i t more t h a n
o n c e ) , DARK 4274 t i m e s .
But as i n t h e case o f t h e Thorodike-Lorge
FRONT o c c u r r e d 22 t i m e s , w h i l e BACK o c c u r r e d 265 t i m e s ; RICH was
36 t i m e s , w h i l e POOR was
FAR
1218.
COMING was
a response 95 t i m e s .
given
NEAR was g i v e n 981 t i m e s ,
g i v e n 166 t i m e s , GOING 714 t i r o e s .
c o u n t , PLAY and WORK showed 791 and
count,
957 o c c u r r e n c e s ,
And, as i n L-
respectively.
However, t h e b e s t evidence a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between v e r b a l h a b i t s
and t h e e v a l u a t i v e aspect
o f meaning i s f o u n d i n a r e c e n t s t u d y by £iegel
(196.0), a l t h o u g h i t wasn't t h e purpose o f t h e s t u d y t o e x p l o r e
relationship.
S i e g e l ' s experiment
dealt with'the effects of verbal
r e i n f o r c e m e n t on t h e e m i s s i o n o f words d i f f e r i n g i n " a f f e c t i v e
and I n f r e q u e n c y .
this
connotation
E i g h t e e n s i x - l e t t e r words o f known f r e q u e n c i e s
and
p r e v i o u s l y j u d g e d on t h e GOOD-BAD and t h e PLEASANT-UNPLEASANT s c a l e s were
s e l e c t e d f r o m a l a r g e r sample.
S i x o f t h e s e words were o f h i g h
frequency
(100 and more i n one m i l l i o n ) , s i x o f medium (20 t o 3 0 ) , and s i x o f low
frequency
( 1 to 5).
W i t h i n each f r e q u e n c y
c l a s s two words were p r e v i o u s -
l y j u d g e d t o be "good", two " n e u t r a l " and two "bad".
Three groups o f
Ss,
o t h e r than those I n v o l v e d i n the a f f e c t i v e judgments, p a r t i c i p a t e d I n
t h e e x p e r i m e n t , each h a v i n g t o d e a l w i t h s i x words of. t h e same f r e q u e n c y .
The p r o c e d u r e c o n s i s t e d o f p r e s e n t i n g t h e £ w i t h t h e l i s t o f s i x words,
a l l h i g h , medium, o r low i n f r e q u e n c y , depending on t h e c o n d i t i o n i n
w h i c h he was
i n , and g i v i n g him a t t h e same t i m e a s t a c k o f cards
w h i c h appeared i l l e g i b l e s i x - l e t t e r "words".
on
O s t e n s i b l y , each c a r d con-
t a i n e d one o f t h e 6 words i n t h e s u b j e c t s ' l i s t .
A c t u a l l y , t h e "words"
Zajonc
12
c o n s i s t e d o f random sequences o f s i x l e t t e r s , p r i n t e d over s e v e r a l
t h i c k n e s s e s o f paper and one carbon.
Their"legibility"
was f u r t h e r
reduced by p l a c i n g each c a r d i n an o n i o n s k i n paper envelope.
The Ss*
t a s k was t o " r e a d " o r t o guess what word appeared on each c a r d .
i n t e r e s t f o r t h e p r e s e n t purposes a r o the f i r s t
fifty trialo
Of
which
s e r v e d t o e s t a b l i s h operant r a t e , and d u r i n g w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , no r e i n sort
forcement o f a n y / s a t v/as g i v e n . T a b l e 3 shows d a t a on t h e guessing
I n s e r t Table 3 about
here
b e h a v i o r o f S i e g e l ' s Ss as a f u n c t i o n o f word f r e q u e n c y and a f f e c t i v e
connotation.
Reported i n each c e l l i s t h e average number o f t i m e s a
word o f a g i v e n f r e q u e n c y and a f f e c t i v e v a l u e was used as a guess d u r i n g
the
50 o p e r a n t t r i a l s .
Since t h e r e a r e s i x words t o choose f r o m , 8.33
r e p r e s e n t s a chance response r a t e .
I t i s c l e a r , however, t h a t b o t h
f r e q u e n c y and a f f e c t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n d i s p l a c e response r a t e away f r o m t h e
chance l e v e l .
High frequency seems t o r e s u l t i n o v e r c a l l i n g , and l o w
frequency i n u n d e r c a l l i n g .
But i t i s s t r i k i n g t o d i s c o v e r t h a t
affective
c o n n o t a t i o n had an even s t r o n g e r e f f e c t on response e m i s s i o n , t h e
m a r g i n a l s f o r t h a t v a r i a b l e showing a somewhat g r e a t e r range o f d i f f e r e n c e s .
Some words i n t h e language have p r i m a r i l y an e v a l u a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
These words s h o u l d show t h e f r e q u e n c y - v a l u e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h p a r t i c u l a r
c l a r i t y . S e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s o f t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p a r e examined.
Let us f i r s t
/
c o n s i d e r t h e s c a l e s o f t h e Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l (Osgood,
S u c i , £ Tannenbaum, 1957).
V/e have chosen o n l y t h o s e s c a l e s which have
h i g h and r e l a t i v e l y p u r e l o a d i n g s on one o f t h e 3 main f a c t o r s , e v a l u a t i o n .
Zajonc
13.
p o t e n c y , and a c t i v i t y .
Table 4 shows t h e p o l a r o p p o s i t e s o f these' s c a l e s ,
t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r f r e q u e n c i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Thorndike-Lorge
L-count.
I n s e r t Table 4 about here
The l e f t - h a n d p o l a r o p p o s i t e s i n t h e t h r e e columns are t h e f a v o r a b l e j
p o t e n t , and a c t i v e ends o f t h e s c a l e s .
the
I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t among
n i n e t e e n e v a l u a t i v e s c a l e s t h e f a v o r a b l e p o l a r o p p o s i t e has
higher frequency than the unfavorable opposite.
For t h e s c a l e s
always
which
do n o t l o a d h i g h on t h e e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r t h e h i g h f r e q u e n c i e s a r e
d i v i d e d f a i r l y e v e n l y among t h e p o t e n t and non-potent
opposites.
In
4
n i n e o f t h e 15 p o t e n c y
frequent.
s c a l e s t h e h i g h l y p o t e n t end o f t h e s c a l e i s more
I n t h r e e o f the 8 a c t i v i t y scales the a c t i v e p o l a r opposite
i s more f r e q u e n t .
There are "fcro o t h e r i n s t a n c e s o f a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between
f r e q u e n c y and v a l u e f o r a d j e c t i v e s .
of
h i s A d j e c t i v e C h e c k l i s t t o 30 j u d g e s who
favorability.
of
Gough (1955) has g i v e n t h e i t e m s
r a t e d each a d j e c t i v e f o r
The most f a v o r a b l e and t h e l e a s t f a v o r a b l e q u a r t i l e s
Gough s C h e c k l i s t are r e p o r t e d i n h i s p u b l i c a t i o n .
1
The
average
word f r e q u e n c y o f t h e upper q u a r t i l e i s 140, and o f t h e l o w e r q u a r t i l e
48.
I n a n o t h e r s t u d y a l i s t o f 555 a d j e c t i v e s was
frequency-value
relationship.
These 555 a d j e c t i v e s were used by Anderson
(1964) i n h i s work on i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n .
out o f a l a r g e sample o f i t e m s .
examined f o r t h e
The
The
l i s t was
constructed
555 s e l e c t e d i t e m s were g i v e n
1
by
Anderson t o a group o f 100 Ss w i t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o r a t e on a sevenp o i n t s c a l e "how much you y o u r s e l f would l i k e t h e person d e s c r i b e d by
Zajonc
14.
t h a t word."
logarithm
The
c o r r e l a t i o n between these l i k e a b i l i t y r a t i n g s and
of the Thorndike-Lorge L-count i s .83**.
the
Figure 1 shows t h i s
I n s e r t Figure 1 about here
r e l a t i o n s h i p g r a p h i c a l l y , where means of log frequencies
are p l o t t e d
f o r s i x c a t e g o r i e s of a d j e c t i v e s i n i n c r e a s i n g order of f a v o r a b i l i t y .
Considering
t h a t the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the Thorndike-Lorge count
and
of Anderson!s f a v o r a b i l i t y r a t i n g s are l e s s than p e r f e c t , t h i s
c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p r e s s i v e .
M i l l e r , Newman, and
Friedman (1958) have shown t h a t word frequency
i s a negative f u n c t i o n of word length.
The problem immediately a r i s e s ,
t h e r e f o r e , as t o which of these two v a r i a b l e s i s c r i t i c a l f o r word
value and word meaning.
I n o r d e r t o examine t h i s p o s s i b l e confounding
between frequency and word l e n g t h , the above c o r r e l a t i o n was
holding the number of l e t t e r s constant.
p r e v i o u s l y obtained c o e f f i c i e n t was
No a p p r e c i a b l e
observed.
The
recomputed
change i n the
c o r r e l a t i o n between
word length and Anderson's f a v o r a b i l i t y r a t i n g s was -.0006.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between word frequency and word length i s explained
I n terms of the p r i n c i p l e of l e a s t e f f o r t .
Words t h a t r e q u i r e
consi-
derable e f f o r t i n w r i t i n g and i n speech are l e s s l i k e l y candidates f o r
use.
F r i n c k e and Johnson (1960) have, t h e r e f o r e , asked s u b j e c t s t o choose
the "most p l e a s a n t l y toned word" from each of 108 homophone p a i r s .
The
g r e a t e s t m a j o r i t y of these p a i r s c o n s i s t e d of words of the same word
l e n g t h , and a l l p a i r s , of c o u r s e , c o n s i s t e d of words t h a t r e q u i r e d
the
Zajonc
13.
same e f f o r t i n u t t e r i n g them,
Out o f 3132 p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s , the more
frequent member o f the p a i r was chosen 1836 times.
Dixon and Dixon (1964) have given a l i s t o f 200 verbs ( i n past-tense
form) t o 60 female and 60 male judges who r a t e d them on an 11-point
GOOD-BAD s c a l e .
The i n s t r u c t i o n s were t o r a t e what " k i n d of impression
£ thought a p s y c h o l o g i s t would get o f him when he used each verb i n a
sentence."
These impression r a t i n g s have c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h l o g frequen-
c i e s ( t h e Thorndike-Lorge L-count) e q u a l t o .48 f o r females and t o ,50
f o r males.
But i t must be pointed out t h a t these c o e f f i c i e n t s represent
c o r r e l a t i o n s s e v e r e l y attenuated by u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the frequency *
variable.
form.
The Thorndike-Lorge count l i s t s verbs i n the p r e s e n t - t e n s e
I f an a d j e c t i v a l form o f the verb e x i s t s , then i t i s a l s o l i s t e d *
I n computing c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s we used, t h e r e f o r e , only the
present-tense frequencies.
Hiron (1961) had American and Japanese Ss r a t e a sample o f t h r e e element p h o n e t i c combinations on the v a r i o u s s c a l e s o f the Semantic
Differential.
familiarity.
The Ss a l s o r a t e d these s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s f o r t h e i r
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s between f a m i l i a r i t y
and the composite of e v a l u a t i v e s c a l e s were .59 and .50 f o r the American
and the Japanese samples, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
But the c o r r e l a t i o n s of
f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the oomposites of the potency and a c t i v i t y f a c t o r s were
low and n e g a t i v e .
As a f i n a l example o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between word frequency and
the e v a l u a t i v e aspect o f meaning, two poems by W i l l i a m Blake a r e c a l l e d
t o the r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n ;
Zajonc
16.
I n f a n t Joy
I n f a n t Sorrow
" I have no name:
My mother groaned!
I am but two days o l d , "
I n t o the dangerous world I l e a p t ;
What s h a l l I c a l l t h e e ?
H e l p l e s s , naked, p i p i n g loud,
" I happy am
Like a fiend h i d l n a cloud.
B
My f a t h e r w e p t ;
Joy i s my name."
S t r u g g l i n g i n my f a t h e r ' s hands,
Sweet j o y b e f a l l t h e e !
S t r i v i n g a g a i n s t my swadling bands,
Pretty joy!
Bound and weary I thought best
Sweet j o y but two days o l d ,
To s u l k upon my mother's b r e a s t .
Sweet j o y I c a l l t h e e :
Thou dost s m i l e ,
I s i n g the w h i l e ,
Sweet j o y b e f a l l thee!
I n these two poems, e x p r e s s i n g opposite q u a l i t i e s o f a f f e c t , the
f r e q u e n c i e s o f the c r i t i c a l words ( i . e., words which convey the major
content, and hence not a r t i c l e s , pronouns, or a u x i l i a r y v e r b s ) were
averaged.
for
The average frequency o f I n f a n t Joy
I n f a n t Sorrow i s 1116.
i s 2037.
The
average
Two f o r m a l l y s i m i l a r v e r s e s , one by
Browning and the o t h e r by S h e l l e y , show the same p a t t e r n :
Zajonc
16a
Song.a
R. Browning
Dirge,
P. B. S h e l l e y
The y e a r ' s a t the s p r i n g .
Rough wind, t h a t moanest loud
And day's at the morn}
G r i e f too sad f o r song;
Morning's at seven;
Wild wind, when s u l l e n c l o u d
The h i l l s i d e ' s
K n e l l s a l l the night long;
dew-pearled;
The l a r k ' s on the wing;
Sad storm, whose t e a r s are i n v a i n ,
The s n a i l ' s on the t h o r n ;
Bare woods, whose branches s t r a i n ,
God's i n h i s Heaven
Deep caves and dreary main
—
A l l ' s r i g h t w i t h the w o r l d
1
—
W a i l , f o r the world's wrong*
The average word frequency of Browning's poem 13 1380.
The poem by
S h e l l e y — w h i c h comes t o a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t and sadder conclusion--has
an average frequency of 728.
Stimulus Frequency-Attitude:
We may now
C o r r e l a t i o n a l Evidence
t u r n t o the more g e n e r a l question o f the e f f e c t of
exposure on a t t i t u d e , s t i l l l i m i t i n g o u r s e l v e s to c o r r e l a t i o n a l
studies*
Zajonc
17,
Here, l e s s evidence
indirect.
e x i s t s , and t h e evidence
which i s a v a i l a b l e i s o f t e n
But t h e r e s u l t s are q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e j u s t
reviewed.
For i n s t a n c e , A l l u i s i and Adams (1962) f o u n d a c o r r e l a t i o n o f .843 between t h e p r e f e r e n c e s u b j e c t s expressed
and t h e i r f r e q u e n c y i n t h e language.
f o r t h e appearance o f l e t t e r s
S t r a s s b u r g e r and Wertheimer (1959)
had Ss r a t e f o r " p l e a s a n t n e s s " nonsense s y l l a b l e s v a r y i n g i n a s s o c i a t i o n
value.
Higher a s s o c i a t i o n values c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c e i v e d h i g h e r "pleasant-
ness" r a t i n g s .
W i l s o n and B e c k n e l l (1961) and Braun (1962) s u c c e s s f u l l y
r e p l i c a t e d these r e s u l t s .
Braun a l s o f o u n d t h a t e i g h t - l e t t e r pseudo-words,
v a r y i n g i n t h e i r o r d e r o f a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o E n g l i s h ( M i l l e r , 1951)
t h e same p a t t e r n .
show
These two s t u d i e s d i f f e r f r o m t h e s i m i l a r ones by
Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e , d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , i n t h a t Ss i n t h e
f o r m e r ones were asked t o judge how p l e a s a n t were t h e s t i m u l i
themselves,
o r how much Ss l i k e d them ( W i l s o n and B e c k n e l l , 1961), w h i l e i n t h e
latter
whether t h e y meant something c l o s e t o GOOD o r c l o s e t o BAD.
I n 1947 t h e N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n .Research Center conducted
an e x t e n s i v e
survey on t h e " p r e s t i g e " o f v a r i o u s o c c u p a t i o n s and p r o f e s s i o n s .
100 o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s were r a t e d f o r " g e n e r a l s t a n d i n g " .
Nearly
Twenty-four
o f t h e s e o c c u p a t i o n s are l a b e l e d by s i n g l e words, such as PHYSICIAN,
SCIENTIST, JANITOR, e t c .
The remainder
i s described less economically:
OWNER-OPERATOR OF A PRINTING SHOP, o r TENANT FARMER—ONE WHO OWNS LIVESTOCK
AND
MACHINERY AND MANAGES THE FARM. Thus, one i s able t o d e t e r m i n e
f r e q u e n c y o f usage f o r o n l y a p a r t o f t h i s l i s t — t h e
occupations.
the
24 s i n g l e - w o r d
The c o r r e l a t i o n between r a t e d o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e o f
t h e s e t w e n t y - f o u r i t e m s and t h e l o g o f f r e q u e n c y o f usage i s .55.
18
Zajonc
S i m i l a r t o t h e r a t i n g s o f o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e are t h e s o c i a l
d i s t a n c e r a t i n g s o f e t h n i c and r a c i a l g r o u p s , f i r s t developed by Bogardus
(1925) o v e r 30 y e a r s ago.
Recent r e p l i c a t i o n s show t h a t t h e s e
d i s t a n c e r a t i n g s e n j o y remarkable
s t a b i l i t y ( B o g a r d u s , 1959).
social
The
cor-
r e l a t i o n between t h e s o - c a l l e d " r a c i a l - d i s t a n c e q u o t i e n t s " , which
are
n u m e r i c a l e q u i v a l e n t s o f t h e s e r a t i n g s , and t h e l o g f r e q u e n c y o f usage
o f t h e s e e t h n i c l a b e l s i s .33,
I n o r d e r t o e x p l o r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h i s s o r t f u r t h e r , I have
s e l e c t e d t e n . c o u n t r i e s whose names are f o u n d i n t h e T h o m d i k e - L o r g e
4
L-count, and whose f r e q u e n c i e s can be a r r a n g e d i n i n c r e a s i n g o r d e r i n
approximately constant l o g u n i t s .
These c o u n t r i e s were t h e n g i v e n t o
h i g h - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o r a n k - o r d e r them i n terms
of l i k i n g .
Table 5 shows t h e average r a n k each c o u n t r y r e c e i v e d and i t s
f r e q u e n c y o f usage a c c o r d i n g t o t h e L-count.
There seems t o be no q u e s t i o n
I n s e r t Table 5 about h e r e
about t h e f r e q u e n c y - a t t i t u d e r e l a t i o n s h i p .
The
c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e
average p r e f e r e n c e r a n k s and f r e q u e n c y r a n k s i s .89.
s h i p i s f o u n d w i t h American c i t i e s .
The same r e l a t i o n -
S e l e c t e d were t e n c i t i e s t h a t ( a ) a r e
l i s t e d i n t h e Thoradiker-Lorge L - c o u n t , and ( b ) can be a r r a n g e d i n
i n c r e a s i n g order o f frequency i n approximately constant l o g u n i t s .
U n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s were asked how
o f these t e n c i t i e s .
much t h e y w o u l d l i k e t o l i v e i n each
T h e i r t a s k , s p e c i f i c a l l y , was t o r a n k - o r d e r
c i t i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s "as a p l a c e t o l i v e " .
The
these
average
Zajonc
19.
r a n k s , together with frequency counts of t h e s e ten c i t i e s , are shown i n
Table 5.
The rank c o r r e l a t i o n between frequency and average p r e f e r e n c e
i s .85.
Other s u b j e c t s , a l s o h i g h - s c h o o l students i n the Midwest, were asked
to r a t e on a seven-point s c a l e how
v e g e t a b l e s , and f l o w e r s .
much they l i k e various t r e e s , f r u i t s ,
I n each case t e n items were s e l e c t e d that were
l i s t e d i n the Thomdike-Lorge count and t h a t could be ordered according
t o a constant l o g frequency u n i t .
(0 = DISLIKE;
items.
are
Table 6 shows both the average
ratings
6 = L I K E ) and the frequency counts f o r the four t y p e s o f
The rank c o r r e l a t i o n s between the frequency and average a t t i t u d e
.84, .81, .85, and .89, f o r t r e e s , f r u i t s , v e g e t a b l e s , and f l o w e r s
respectively.
I n s e r t Table 6 about here
Of course, word counts do not f a i t h f u l l y r e p r e s e n t the f r e q u e n c i e s
with which one encounters the above items.
d i s c o v e r p r e c i s e l y how
And i t i s d i f f i c u l t
to
often the average Midwestern high-school
student encounters a yew,
a cowslip, or a radish.
But a f a i r index of
frequency of exposure can he found i n farm production data.
For seven
of the vegetables i n Table 6 farm production f i g u r e s f o r 1963 are
a v a i l a b l e , and they a r e shown below i n thousands
of tons;
Zajonc
20.
CORN (4.17)
2,340.9
POTATOES (4.13)
13,777.1
LETTUCE (4.00)
1,937.6
CARROTS (3.57)
843.8
ASPARAGUS (2.33)
187.8
CAULIFLOWER (1.96)
123.4
BROCCOLI (1.96)
123.9
Included a l s o ( i n b r a c k e t s ) a r e average preference r a t i n g s o f t h e s e
seven v e g e t a b l e s .
The rank c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e production f i g u r e s
and the average preference r a t i n g s i s .96.
T h i s i m p r e s s i v e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , l i k e those we observed
above may not re I f a c t the e f f e c t o f frequency on a t t i t u d e but t h e
e
e f f e c t o f a t t i t u d e on frequency.
Thus, i t can be argued t h a t many r o s e s
are grown because people l i k e r o s e s .
But i t can a l s o be argued t h a t
people l i k e r o s e s because t h e r e a r e many r o s e s growing.
There i s l e s s
ambiguity, however, with r e g a r d t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between frequency
of l e t t e r s and the preference f o r t h e i r appearance
1962),
( A l l u i s i & Adams,
There a r e n ' t so many E ' s i n E n g l i s h j u s t because we l i k e the
way E ' s look.
Of c o u r s e , the hypothesis o f f e r e d here would not be disproved even
i f the above c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s r e f l e c t e d only t h e e f f e c t o f a t t i t u d e
on exposure.
The e x i s t e n c e o f t h i s l a t t e r e f f e c t does not i n any way
preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y of an e f f e c t o f exposure on a t t i t u d e s .
q u a n t i t y o f corn i s produced because Americans l i k e corn.
I s nothing i n t r i n s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e i n corn.
A large
But t h e r e
Many European peoples
Zajonc
21.
shudder a t the thought o f e a t i n g i t .
Nor do they see much o f i t . The
t a s t e f o r c o m i s a matter o f s o c i a l l e a r n i n g , and the frequency of our
exposure t o i t i s i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y an important f a c t o r i n our t a s t e
for
it.
T h i s s o r t o f argument suggests f o r a given s o c i e t y a s t a b l e
system o f food p r e f e r e n c e , with t a s t e s and production having mutually
enhancing e f f e c t s upon each other.
And indeed, our p r e f e r e n c e s f o r foods,
f l o w e r s , t r e e s , v e g e t a b l e s , and f r u i t s didn't change f o r centuries,! as
one can gather from s i x t e e n t h and seventeenth century l i t e r a t u r e and
painting.
S t i l l , u n t i l t h e r e i s experimental evidence, the question of
which i s the cause and which the e f f e c t remains a matter o f c o n j e c t u r e .
We s h a l l now t u r n , t h e r e f o r e , t o such experimental evidence.
Exposure—meaning;
Experimental Evidence
The f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t a l study on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between exposure
and word meaning was c a r r i e d out by Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e ( 1 9 6 0 ) .
These authors f i r s t asked Ss t o r a t e a number of nonsense words on the
GOOD-BAD s c a l e o f the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l .
t h a t " t h i s i s an experiment
The S s were then i n s t r u c t e d
concerning the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f r e p e t i t i o n
i n l e a r n i n g t o pronounce strange words c o r r e c t l y . "
Some o f these words
were shown once, others t w i c e , f i v e t i m e s , o r t e n times.
Ss were r e -
q u i r e d t o look a t t h e s e words and t o pronounce them on each p r e s e n t a t i o n .
F o l l o w i n g t h i s t r a i n i n g procedure the words were again r a t e d on the
GOOD-BAD s c a l e .
A s i g n i f i c a n t exposure e f f e c t was obtained by Johnson,
Thomson, and F r i n c k e , with the words shown f r e q u e n t l y i n c r e a s i n g on
the e v a l u a t i v e s c a l e .
S t r a n g e l y , however, words which were seen only
once i n t r a i n i n g were judged afterwards not q u i t e as "GOOD" as before
Zajonc
22.
training.
Thus, as a r e s u l t of two, f i v e , and t e n exposures words im-
proved i n meaning, and as a r e s u l t of but one exposure they d e t e r i o r a t e d .
T h i s r e s u l t might be an a r t i f a c t of the b e f o r e - a f t e r procedure used by
Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e .
Our experiment used the same s t i m u l i which, i n c i d e n t a l l y , came
from the f a m i l i a r experiment by Solomon and Postman (1952) on the e f f e c t s
of word frequency on r e c o g n i t i o n t h r e s h o l d .
The s p e c i f i c experimental
aims were a l s o t h e same as those of Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e .
our design d i f f e r e d from t h e i r s i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s .
But
I n the Johnson4
Thomson-Frincke experiment the same words always appeared i n the same
frequencies t o a l l S s .
Thus, the word JANDAR^, f o r i n s t a n c e , was
given
t e n times to each S_, and the word MECBURI was given once t o each S.
It
i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the e f f e c t s t h e s e authors obtained are not due t o the
frequency manipulation a l o n e , but t h a t they depend on the s t i m u l u s
m a t e r i a l w i t h which the frequency v a r i a b l e was f u l l y confounded.
I n our
study words and t r a i n i n g f r e q u e n c i e s were, t h e r e f o r e , counterbalanced
i n a l a t i n square design.
Because words and the number of exposures were
counterbalanced an a f t e r - o n l y design c o u l d be employed, r e q u i r i n g no
pre-measures.
The e f f e c t s of repeated exposure could be observed
by
comparing f o r each word the f a v o r a b i l i t y r a t i n g i t r e c e i v e d a f t e r having
been exposed during t r a i n i n g once, t w i c e , f i v e t i m e s , e t c .
Our experiment
d i f f e r s from t h a t of Johnson, Thomson, and F r i n c k e
(1960) i n two a d d i t i o n a l r e s p e c t s .
I n t h e i r experiment the s u b j e c t s
1
i
t a s k f o l l o w i n g t r a i n i n g was t o r a t e each word on the GOOD-BAD s c a l e .
F i r s t , i n the p r e s e n t experiment
Ss were t-eld a f t e r t r a i n i n g t h a t the
Zajonc
23.
words t h e y j u s t l e a r n e d t o pronounce were T u r k i s h a d j e c t i v e s , and
t h e i r n e x t j o b w o u l d be t o guess t h e i r meaning.
that
They were n o t . r e q u i r e d
" t o guess t h i s meaning e x a c t l y , b u t i t would s u f f i c e " i f t h e y i n d i c a t e d
on a s e v e n - p o i n t
GOOD-BAD s c a l e whether each o f t h e s e words meant some-
t h i n g GOOD o r s o m e t h i n g BAD,
and t o what e x t e n t .
Second, i n a d d i t i o n t o
t h e f o u r d i f f e r e n t f r e q u e n c i e s o f exposure used by Johnson, Thomson, and
F r i n c k e , t h e z e r o - f r e q u e n c y and t h e f r e q u e n c y
employed i n o u r
experiment.
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s experiment
F i g u r e 3.
o f 25 exposures were
are shown i n F i g u r e 2, and i n
I n F i g u r e 2 are shown t h e average r a t i n g s o f "goodness". f o r
t h e s i x f r e q u e n c i e s p l o t t e d on a l o g s c a l e .
observations.
Each p o i n t i s based on
I t i s c l e a r , f r o m t h e s e r e s u l t s , t h a t a s t r o n g and
o c a l e f f e c t o f exposure was
obtained.
e f f e c t i s independent o f the c o n t e n t .
averaged f o r each word when i t was
f r e q u e n c i e s o f 0, 1 , and
144
unequiv-
F i g u r e 3 shows t h a t t h e exposure
The r a t i n g s o f "goodness" were
given during t r a i n i n g w i t h the
2 ( h a t c h e d b a r s ) and when i t was
h i g h e r f r e q u e n c i e s o f 5, 10, and 25 ( s o l i d b a r s ) ,
lower
given w i t h the
Ss c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d
I n s e r t F i g . s 2 and 3 about here
the. g i v e n word t o mean s o m e t h i n g " b e t t e r " i f t h e y had seen i t (and had s a i d
i t ) more o f t e n .
T h i s e f f e c t i s t r u e f o r a l l 12 words used i n t h e
experiment.
S i n c e t h e h y p o t h e s i s proposed above h o l d s t h a t mere exposure i s a
s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n o f a t t i t u d e change, t h e above p r o c e d u r e i s n o t t h e
best f o r t e s t i n g i t s v a l i d i t y .
I n p a r t i c u l a r , Ss i n t h e above
a r e r e q u i r e d t o pronounce t h e nonsense words d u r i n g t r a i n i n g .
experiment
I n order
Zajonc
24.
t o f u r t h e r reduce t h e i r a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n d u r i n g t h e course o f manipu l a t i n g e x p o s u r e , t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p e r i m e n t was c a r r i e d o u t .
To meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "mere e x p o s u r e "
Chinese c h a r a c t e r s were s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h e nonsense words.
The Ss were
again t o l d t h a t the experiment d e a l t w i t h t h e l e a r n i n g o f a f o r e i g n
language, b u t now t h e y were n o t r e q u i r e d t o pronounce t h e c h a r a c t e r s .
N o r — b e c a u s e o f t h e i r i g n o r a n c e o f C h i n e s e — w e r e t h e y a b l e t o pronounce
them s u b v o c a l l y .
They were s i m p l y i n s t r u c t e d t o pay c l o s e a t t e n t i o n t o
t h e c h a r a c t e r s whenever t h e y were exposed t o them.
I n a l l other respects
t h e e x p e r i m e n t was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e one e m p l o y i n g nonsense words.
Now,
t o o , f o l l o w i n g t r a i n i n g Ss were t o l d t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r s s t o o d f o r a d j e c t i v e s , and t h a t t h e i r t a s k was t o guess t h e i r meaning on t h e GOOD-BAD
scale.
C h a r a c t e r s and exposures were a g a i n c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d .
Figures 2
and 4 show t h e r e s u l t s , and i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e e x p o s u r e - f a v o r a b i l i t y
I n s e r t F i g u r e 4 about h e r e
r e l a t i o n s h i p p r e v i o u s l y f o u n d w i t h nonsense words o b t a i n s even i f t h e
i n d i v i d u a l ' s exposure t o t h e s t i m u l u s c o n s i s t s o f h i s p a s s i v e l y l o o k i n g
at i t
f o r a p e r i o d o f about two seconds.
F i g u r e 4 shows t h a t t h e
exposure e f f e c t i s f o u n d f o r a l l s t i m u l i b u t one.
Amster and Glasman (1965) r e p o r t a n e g a t i v e r e s u l t u s i n g a p r o c e d u r e
m
d
(I960),
s i m i l a r t o t h a t employed by Johnson Thomson, J f r i n c k e /
4
The e x p e r i m e n t was
s i m i l a r i n a l l r e s p e c t s e x c e p t t h a t m e a n i n g f u l E n g l i s h words were s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h e nonsense s t i m u l i .
No exposure e f f e c t was observed by
Amster and Glasman f o r t h e s e m e a n i n g f u l words.
But t h i s f i n d i n g i s n o t
Zajonc
25.
a t a l l s u r p r i s i n g . Nor i s i t e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the understanding of exposure e f f e c t s . Adding one more occasion ( o r even t e n more
o c c a s i o n s ) t o see and say a p e r f e c t l y well-known E n g l i s h word t o a l l the
times t h i s word had been seen and u t t e r e d by the i n d i v i d u a l i n the past
— a f i g u r e often i n the t h o u s a n d s — r e a l l y shouldn't have much e f f e c t on
the meaning he a t t r i b u t e s t o i t . The e x p e c t a t i o n of a change i n the
e v a l u a t i v e aspect of meaning as a f u n c t i o n of ten a d d i t i o n a l exposures
becomes even l e s s reasonable when we c o n s i d e r t h a t the change i n a f f e c t i v e
connotation i s a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n of the logarithm- of frequency, as we
noted i n F i g u r e s 1 and 2. The d i f f e r e n c e i n the t o t a l exposure of a word
s a i d 1000 times and one s a i d 1010 times i s indeed n e g l i g i b l e .
Exposure-attitude R e l a t i o n s h i p : Experimental, Evidence
I n a l l the experiments above the q u e s t i o n asked of the s u b j e c t s i n
r a t i n g the s t i m u l i f o l l o w i n g exposure d e a l t with the e v a l u a t i v e aspect of
t h e i r meaning.
The s u b j e c t s were never r e q u i r e d to s a y j u s t how
they " l i k e d " the nonsense words o r Chinese c h a r a c t e r s .
much
I n a l l probability
the r e s u l t s would have been the same i f they were asked d i r e c t l y t o s t a t e
t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward t h e s e words and c h a r a c t e r s , and the
(1961) r e s u l t s support t h i s c o n j e c t u r e .
Wilson-Becknell
But b e c a u s e t h e i r s t i m u l i w e r e e s -
s e n t i a l l y v e r b a l i n n a t u r e , S s ' answers could i n these s t u d i e s be s t r o n g l y
I n f l u e n c e d by semantic
f a c t o r s . T h i s would have been l e s s l i k e l y , of
c o u r s e , i n the case o f Chinese
c h a r a c t e r s than i n the case of nonsense
words.
As I mentioned i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n , t h e r e i s some d i r e c t evidence
on
t h e a t t i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s of mere exposure, d e a l i n g almost e x c l u s i v e l y with
Zajonc
26.
music a p p r e c i a t i o n .
Meyer ( 1 9 0 3 ) , f o r example, p l a y e d t o h i s s t u d e n t s
o r i e n t a l music 12 t o 15 t i m e s i n s u c c e s s i o n .
I n most cases t h e s t u d e n t s
1
i n t r o s p e c t i v e p r o t o c o l s i n d i c a t e d a b e t t e r l i k i n g f o r t h e p i e c e s on the
l a s t t h a n on t h e f i r s t p r e s e n t a t i o n .
I n Meyer's e x p e r i m e n t
of
r e p e a t e d exposure
One
o f t h e s t u d e n t s who t o o k p a r t
(H. T. Moore), and who
showed enhancement e f f e c t s
( " I l i k e d the l a s t time b e t t e r than the f i r s t ,
cause I became more used t o t h e s u c c e s s i v e c h o r d s " ) f o l l o w e d up
work i n a s t u d y o f h i s own t w e n t y years l a t e r .
be-
this
Moore and G i l l i l a n d
(1924)
p l a y e d t o t h e i r s t u d e n t s j a z z and c l a s s i c a l r e c o r d s once a week f o r
t w e n t y - f i v e weeks.
was
L i k i n g f o r c l a s s i c a l r e c o r d s i n c r e a s e d , b u t no change
f o u n d f o r j a z z music.
S i m i l a r r e s u l t s are r e p o r t e d by o t h e r w r i t e r s
(Krugman, 1943; V e r v e e r , B a r r y , £ B o u s f i e l d , 1933; Washburn, C h i l d , 6 A b e l ,
1927).
Downey £ Knapp ( 1 9 2 7 ) p l a y e d t o 33 s t u d e n t s a v a r i e t y o f m u s i c a l
s e l e c t i o n s ( e . g . , Tschaikowsky's Marche S l a v e , Massenet's M e d i t a t i o n
f r o m " T h a i s " , Columbia, The Gem o f t h e Ocean, e t c . ) once a week f o r f i v e
weeks.
A l l p i e c e s o f music except one ( C o l u m b i a , The Gem
became b e t t e r l i k e d a t t h e c l o s e o f t h e s e s s i o n s .
Ss w i t h sounds h a v i n g u n f a m i l i a r r h y t h m s .
f i r s t unpleasant.
them i n c r e a s e d .
o f t h e Ocean)
A l p o r t (1953) p r e s e n t e d
H i s Ss f o u n d t h e s e sounds a t
A f t e r r e p e a t e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s , however, t h e l i k i n g f o r
A d d i t i o n a l exposures
o f Ss t o t h e tones r e s u l t e d i n
i n c r e a s i n g i n d i f f e r e n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e l i s t e n e r s .
(1957) f o u n d t h a t upon r e p e a t e d exposure
More r e c e n t l y , M u l l
t o t h e i r music s u b j e c t s enjoy.
Schoenberg and H i n d e m i t h more.
I n t h e area o f v i s u a l a r t s , Pepper (1919) f o u n d t h a t r e p e a t e d
r e s u l t e d i n more p o s i t i v e e s t h e t i c judgments
exposure
o f unusual c o l o r combinations.
Krugman and H a r t l e y ( 1 9 6 0 ) , however, u s i n g famous p a i n t i n g s , c o u l d o n l y
Zaj one
27.
f i n d ambiguous r e s u l t s . Maslow (1937) p r o j e c t e d f o r f o u r days i n succ e s s i o n 15 p a i n t i n g s o f g r e a t masters.
S i x days f o l l o w i n g t h e l a s t
p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e 15 p a i n t i n g s were p r e s e n t e d once a g a i n , and i n t e r s p e r s e d
among them were f i f t e e n o t h e r s (matched f o r t h e a r t i s t ) w h i c h t h e Ss have
n e v e r seen. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a g r o a t o r l i k i n g f o r t h e f a m i l i a r
p a i n t i n g s . Maslow (1937) a l s o made t e s t s o f p r e f e r e n c e , f r e q u e n t l y w i t h
s i m i l a r r e s u l t s , f o r o t h e r f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r o b j e c t s , such as
r u b b e r bands, p a p e r c l i p s , b l o t t e r s , p e n s , p e n c i l s , e t c . A s i m i l a r
experiment t o t h e one w i t h p a i n t i n g s , b u t u s i n g i n s t e a d Russian g i r l s
names, showed t h e same r e s u l t s . The same s u b j e c t s wereaused i n a l l t h e s e
s t u d i e s and t h e s e s s i o n s t o o k p l a c e i n t h e same room, t h e s u b j e c t s always
s i t t i n g i n t h e same c h a i r s . Toward t h e end of' t h e t e s t i n g program Maslow
asked i f anyone w o u l d l i k e t o change s e a t s . No one d i d , p r e f e r r i n g , app a r e n t l y , t o remain i n t h e f a m i l i a r one.
1
A l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e above s t u d i e s a r e f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t , t h e
c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h t h e y were c a r r i e d o u t make t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s somewhat l e s s t h a n c o m p e l l i n g .
I n the majority o f instances, theconditions
o f t h e r e p e a t e d exposure were q u i t e ambiguous.
u s u a l l y conducted
The e x p e r i m e n t s
i n c l a s s e s , t h e i n s t r u c t o r s e r v i n g ' as E.
were
Ss o f t e n
responded a l o u d , t h u s b e i n g a b l e t o i n f l u e n c e each o t h e r ' s judgments and
opinions.
The
P r i o r t o t h e s e s s i o n s E_ o f t e n expressed
h i s own p r e f e r e n c e s .
s t i m u l i r e p e a t e d l y shown, were n o t always exposed under t h e same
c o n d i t i o n s , and t h e m a t e r i a l , e x p o s u r e s , and sequences, were seldom
counterbalanced.
B e c k n e l l , W i l s o n , and B a i r d (1963) have r e c e n t l y r e p o r t e d more conv i n c i n g support f o r t h e e x p o s u r e - a t t i t u d e hypothesis.
S l i d e s o f nonsense
Zaj one
28,
s y l l a b l e s were p r e s e n t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t f r e q u e n c i e s ( 1 , 4, 7, and 1 0 ) ,
F o l l o w i n g t h i s exposure t r a i n i n g ( w h i c h a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t e r s p e r s e d
p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f s l i d e s w i t h landscapes and w i t h a d s ) Ss ( a l l f e m a l e s )
were g i v e n p a i r s o f boxes c o n t a i n i n g n y l o n s t o c k i n g s , and t h e y were asked
t o choose t h e " b r a n d " t h e y p r e f e r r e d . These " b r a n d s " corresponded t o
t h e nonsense s y l l a b l e s p r e v i o u s l y shown, and t h e y were p r i n t e d on t h e
boxes. Each S_ r e c e i v e d t w o d i f f e r e n t p a i r s o f boxes f o r comparison. The
p a i r e d - c o m p a r i s o n d a t a showed a c l e a r t e n d e n c y o f Ss t o p r e f e r t h e box
marked by t h e more f r e q u e n t s y l l a b l e . A g a i n , however, t h e s e m a n t i c component I s n o t e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e e f f e c t s o b t a i n e d i n t h e s e t w o s t u d i e s .
There i s one more i t e m o f e v i d e n c e , somewhat i n d i r e c t , on t h e problem
o f t h e e f f e c t s o f exposure.
I n a s t u d y by Munsinger (1964) Ss were g i v e n
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t t o themselves CVC t r i g r a m s whose a s s o c i a t i o n
v a l u e , e v a l u a t i o n s c a l e v a l u e , and p r e p o t e n c y s c o r e ( M a n d l e r , 1955) were
p r e v i o u s l y assessed.
By p r e s s i n g a response key t h e S_w£>dld expose i n a
s m a l l window a t r i g r a m w h i c h he w o u l d
then.have t o s p e l l .
a t w h i c h he k e y - p r e s s e d c o n s t i t u t e d t h e dependent measure.
The r a t e
I n one o f
M u n s i n g e r s e x p e r i m e n t a l groups Ss c o u l d expose t o themselves by means
1
o f t h a t key-response
prepotency.
t r i g r a m s t h a t were matched f o r a s s o c i a t i o n and•
A l l t h e s e t r i g r a m s , however, p r e v i o u s l y s c o r e d low on t h e
e v a l u a t i v e s c a l e s o f t h e semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l .
A f t e r Ss reached an
a s y m p t o t i c k e y - p r e s s i n g r a t e , t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s changed such
t h a t now t h e Ss' response would expose t r i g r a m s t h a t were h i g h i n
e v a l u a t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e y were s t i l l matched f o r a s s o c i a t i o n and p r e p o t e n c y .
Zajonc
29.
A s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n response r a t e s i s r e p o r t e d by Munsinger f o l l o w i n g t h e change i n t h e a f f e c t i v e v a l u e o f t h e t r i g r a m s . A g a i n , however,
t h e semantic component i s n o t e n t i r e l y e x c l u d e d f r o m t b e e f f e c t s
o b t a i n e d i n t h e s e two s t u d i e s .
Because t h e y a r e l e s s a m a t t e r o f s e m a n t i c f a c t o r s , we have chosen
to
manipulate
by means o f exposure i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s .
Using the
same e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n as w i t h t h e Chinese c h a r a c t e r s , f a c e s o f
(photographs
t h e MSU
o f g r a d u a t i n g Michigan
men
State u n i v e r s i t y seniors taken
Yearbook) were employed as a t t i t u d e o b j e c t s .
from
The experiment
was
introduced t o S s — a l l students at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan—as dealing
w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f " v i s u a l memory."
F o l l o w i n g t h e exposure m a n i p u l a t i o n ,
w h i c h c o n s i s t e d o f p r e s e n t i n g each p h o t o g r a p h a d i f f e r e n t number o f
t i m e s f o r a p e r i o d o f two seconds, Ss were asked t o r a t e on a 7 - p o i n t
s c a l e how much t h e y m i g h t l i k e t h e man
on each p h o t o g r a p h "as a
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y a r e shown i n F i g u r e s 5 and 6.
person".
While t h e exposure
e f f e c t i s n o t as c l e a r as p r e v i o u s l y ( o n l y 9 o f t h e 12 s t i m u l i show i t ) ,
i t i s s t i l l r a t h e r i m p r e s s i v e ( F = 9.96;
d f = 5/770; p
<.001).
I n s e r t F i g u r e s 5 and 6 a b o u t h e r e
The
of
Word-rfrequency—Word-value R e l a t i o n s h i p as a S p e c i a l Case
the Exposure-attitude
Relationship
I n t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h i s paper some e v i d e n c e was
presented
sug-
g e s t i n g t h a t words w i t h p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n s a r e used more
f r e q u e n t l y ( b o t h i n p r i n t and i n speech) t h a n words w i t h n e g a t i v e
connotations.
I n t h e second s e c t i o n e v i d e n c e was
affective
g i v e n t o suggest t h a t t h e
Zajonc
30,
a f f e c t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n o f a word improves w i t h t h e i r r e p e a t e d use.
Because t h e second i t e m o f evidence
r e s t s on e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o o f , i n
which t h e f r e q u e n c y o f usage was s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and i n d e p e n d e n t l y manipu l a t e d , one cannot q u e s t i o n t h e c a u s a l d i r e c t i o n i m p l i e d i n these
data.
But f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f r e q u e n c y o f usage a f f e c t s meaning needn't necess a r i l y p r e c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t meaning determines t h e f r e q u e n c y o f
usage.
I t i s necessary t h e r e f o r e t o examine more c l o s e l y t h e r e s u l t s
on t h e c o r r e l a t i o n a l e v i d e n c e
between word-frequency
Why a r e p o s i t i v e words used more f r e q u e n t l y ?
and word v a l u e .
Besides t h e r a t h e r w i s t -
f u l and u n l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e a r e more p o s i t i v e t h a n n e g a t i v e
r e f e r e n t s ( i . e . , we l i v e i n a p a r a d i s e ) , one r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y
itself.
The evidence
suggests
r e v i e w e d so f a r d e a l s o n l y w i t h usage p e r word.
The t o t a l i t y o f "good" and "bad" usage, however, depends on t h e numbers
o f d i f f e r e n t "good" and "bad" words i n t h e language.
I t i s entirely
p o s s i b l e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f "good" words i n f r e q u e n c y
p e r word e x i s t s s i d e by s i d e w i t h t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f "bad" words i n t h e i r
greater v a r i e t y .
T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y r e c e i v e s some s u p p o r t f r o m t h e
fact
t h a t i n E n g l i s h ( a n d i n a h o s t o f o t h e r languages) p r e f i x e s and s u f f i x e s
t h a t serve t o negate o r r e v e r s e meaning, such as ANTI, DE, I M , I N , I R ,
I*ESS, UN, e t c . , a r e most commonly a t t a c h e d t o words h a v i n g a p o s i t i v e
c o n n o t a t i o n . . Once a t t a c h e d t o a word t h e y almost u n i v e r s a l l y f o r m a
word w i t h a n e g a t i v e a f f e c t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n .
prefixes o r s u f f i x e s are exceptional:
P o s i t i v e words w i t h
these
UNSELFISH, INDEPENDENT, a r e some
examples.
I t w o u l d a p p e a r , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e r e are i n d e e d more n e g a t i v e t h a n
p o s i t i v e words.
And i f t h e r e a r e more d i f f e r e n t n e g a t i v e w o r d s , t h e usage
Zajonc
31.
p e r word would" n a t u r a l l y be a t t e n u a t e d f o r t h e s e w o r d s , because t h e t o t a l
usage w o u l d be d i s t r i b u t e d among a l a r g e r u n i v e r s e o f i t e m s .
Norman has asked a group o f s t u d e n t s t o s e p a r a t e a l a r g e sample
5
o f a d j e c t i v e s i n t o "good" ones and "bad" ones.
On t h e average 2.31 mcwe
Items were p l a c e d I n t h e "bad" p i l e t h a n i n t h e "good * p i l e .
1
The
f r e q u e n c y f i g u r e s i n Table 1 above show a p a t t e r n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Kooraaa's
independent
finding*
The average frequency o f t h e p r e f e r r e d antonyms
i s 2.3 t i m e s l a r g e r t h a n t h e average f r e q u e n c y o f t h e n o n - p r e f e r r e d
antonyms1
Therefore, f o r t h e m a t e r i a l considered here* the r a t i o o f
t o t a l p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e usage i s e q u a l t o u n i t y .
I f r e p e a t e d usage enhances t h e a f f e c t i v e meaning o f words, a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e s u p p l y o f n e g a t i v e words would i n f a c t be needed.
I t would
be e q u a l l y r e a s o n a b l e t o expect t h a t t h e r e e x i s t d e v i c e s i n language
p r o t e c t i n g words f r o m a d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f meaning.
I t i s entirely possible
t h a t t h e p r e f i x e s and s u f f i x e s d i s c u s s e d above s e r v e t h i s
function.
Because t h e n e g a t i v e q u a l i t i e s o f t h e s e p r e f i x e s and s u f f i x e s a r e
independent
o f t h e i r r e f e r e n t s , because t h e y a r e e s s e n t i a l l y a b s t r a c t ,
and because t h e y d e r i v e t h e i r n e g a t i v i t y f r o m t h e semantic f u n c t i o n t h e y
p e r f o r m , words f o r m e d by means o f t h e s e p r e f i x e s and s u f f i x e s a r e perhaps
b e t t e r a b l e t h a n r o o t - w o r d s t o r e s i s t an enhancement o f a f f e c t i v e conn o t a t i o n as a r e s u l t o f r e p e a t e d usage.
I was u n a b l e t o f i n d
evidence
c o r r o b o r a t i n g t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w , a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a good d e a l o f
p h i l o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on b o t h p o s i t i v e changes I n meaning ( s e e f o r
i n s t a n c e VanDongen, 1933) and n e g a t i v e changes i n meaning ( s e e , f o r i n s t a n c e ,
Zajonc
32.
S c h r a u d e r , 1929).
Moat o f t h e s o u r c e s , however, c o n s i d e r changes i n
meaning o f r o o t words o n l y .
I f t h e r e a r e any r e m a i n i n g doubts t h a t f r e q u e n c y o f words i s a
f u n c t i o n o f t h e value o f t h e i r r e f e r e n t s , then t h e f o l l o w i n g frequencies
o f a few w e l l chosen b u t s i g n i f i c a n t words s h o u l d once and f o r a l l
d i s p e l them:
PSYCHOLOGIST
36
CHEMIST
32
ECONOMIST
32
SOCIOLOGIST
14
ASTRONOMER
12
GEOLOGIST
9
PHYSICIST
8
GEOGRAPHER
7
BOTANIST
6
BIOLOGIST
5
The E x p o s u r e — a t t i t u d e H y p o t h e s i s
and R e l a t e d T h e o r e t i c a l I s s u e s
W h i l e evidence t h a t t h e w o r d - f r e q u e n c y — w o r d - v a l u e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s
a s p e c i a l case o f t h e e x p o s u r e — a t t i t u d e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a d m i t t e d l y l e s s
t h a n c l e a r , i t i s a l s o a m a t t e r o f some c o n j e c t u r e i f t h e l a t t e r i s as
g e n e r a l , u n i v e r s a l , and b a s i c as may have been I m p l i e d .
enhanced by mere r e p e a t e d exposure?
Are a l l a t t i t u d e s
I s t h e r e a number o f r e p e t i t i o n s
beyond which a t t i t u d e b e g i n s t o become n e g a t i v e ?
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y across a t t i t u d e o b j e c t s ?
Does t h i s number v a r y
Are these e f f e c t s s t a b l e ?
c o u r s e , t h e s e and l i k e q u e s t i o n s can o n l y be answered by f u r t h e r
Of
Zajonc
33,
e m p i r i c a l work*
We can now o n l y r e v i e w and e v a l u a t e t h e o r e t i c a l arguments
t h a t support t h e hypothesis i n i t s general f o r m , o r t h a t are i n c o n f l i c t
with
it*
Let us f i r s t
c o n s i d e r a p o s s i b l e b i o l o g i c a l s u r v i v a l v a l u e o f an
exposure-enhancement mechanism.
A stimulus presented f o r t h e f i r s t
evokes i n t h e organism an i n s t i n c t i v e f e a r r e a c t i o n .
n o t e d t h a t a young r a v e n
9
time
Lorenz (1956)
" c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a new o b j e c t , w h i c h may be a
camera, an o l d b o t t l e , a s t u f f e d p o l e c a t , o r a n y t h i n g e l s e , f i r s t r e a c t s
w i t h escape responses.
He w i l l f l y up t o an e l e v a t e d p e r c h , a n d , f r o m
t h i s p o i n t o f vantage, s t a r e a t t h e o b j e c t l i t e r a l l y
f o r hours.
t h i s he w i l l b e g i n t o approach t h e o b j e c t v e r y g r a d u a l l y . . . "
After
Buhler,
H e t z e r , and Mabel (1928) observed t h a t human i n f a n t s r e a c t t o a s t r a n g e
sound by c r y i n g o u t w i t h f e a r *
Upon t h e second exposure o f t h e sound
s t i m u l u s , movement and v o c a l i z a t i o n t h a t i n d i c a t e d d i s p l e a s u r e were observed*
ing
On t h e t h i r d e x p o s u r e , t h e i n f a n t s l i s t e n e d t o t h e sound show-
some s i g n s o f a t t e n t i o n , b u t d i d n o t seem t o show any d i s p l e a s u r e *
On
t h e - f o u r t h e x p o s u r e , t h e y l o o k e d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e sound w i t h
detectable interest.
observation*
These f a c t s , o f c o u r s e , a r e borne o u t by common
Hunt (1965) r e p o r t s t h a t young i n f a n t s he observed
preferred
a f a m i l i a r m o b i l e t o a new one.
The s u r v i v a l v a l u e o f such a r e f l e x i s o b v i o u s . But t h e r e i s no
d i r e c t evidence t h a t a l l organisms a r e equipped w i t h an avoidance
o o c u r r i n g upon t h e e n c o u n t e r o f a n o v e l s t i m u l u s , and t h a t t h i s
is
instinctive.
reaction
reaction
However, i f we assume t h a t t h i s i s t h e case, t h e n t h e
e x p o s u r e - a t t i t u d e h y p o t h e s i s becomes q u i t e - r e a s o n a b l e .
The f i r s t
Zajonc
3**.
encounter w i t h t h e n o v e l s t i m u l u s produces f e a r r e a c t i o n . I f no n e g a t i v e
consequences a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s f i r s t e n c o u n t e r , t h e avoidance
r e a c t i o n upon t h e second e n c o u n t e r w i l l n a t u r a l l y be weaker. I f such
encounters c o n t i n u e , and i f no o t h e r e v e n t s — n e g a t i v e i n t h e i r consequences f o r t h e organism—accompany t h e s e e n c o u n t e r s , t h e n t h e organism's
a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e s t i m u l u s must i m p r o v e . To be a u r e t h e h y p o t h e s i s
dees n o t deny o r p r e c l u d e t h e e f f e c t s o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t . The exposure o f
a s t i m u l u s c o u p l e d w i t h r e w a r d w i l l s t r e n g t h e n t h e animal's approach
b e h a v i o r ; and t h e exposure o f s t i m u l u s c o u p l e d w i t h a noxious event w i l l
s t r e n g t h e n h i s avoidance r e a c t i o n s . But I n t h e absence o f reward o r
6
4
punishment, mere exposure w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e enhancement o f t h e
organism's
a t t i t u d e toward t h e g i v e n s t i m u l u s o b j e c t .
There are r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s and t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s t h a t appear
t o be i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e above h y p o t h e s i s .
They a r e i n t h e areas o f
c u r i o s i t y and e x p l o r a t o r y b e h a v i o r on t h e one h a n d , and o f spontaneous
a l t e r n a t i o n and s t i m u l u s s a t i a t i o n on t h e o t h e r .
of
I n h i s e x c e l l e n t review
t h e l i t e r a t u r e on c u r i o s i t y and e x p l o r a t i o n B e r l y n e (1960)
clearly
shows t h a t , g i v e n a c h o i c e , an a n i m a l w i l l t e n d t o t u r n t o w a r d a n o v e l
s t i m u l u s r a t h e r t h a n t o w a r d a f a m i l i a r one.
These r e s u l t s , however, d e a l
w i t h t h e a n i m a l ' s e x p l o r a t o r y and o r i e n t i n g b e h a v i o r , which i s n o t a
f a i r Index o f h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e e x p l o r e d o b j e c t .
of
a n o v e l o b j e c t does n o t i n i t s e l f
The
exploration
i n d i c a t e t h a t the animal p r e f e r s
( i n t h e a t t i t u d i n a l sense o f t h i s word) t h e n o v e l o b j e c t t o a f a m i l i a r
one.
Moreover, e x p e r i m e n t s on e x p l o r a t o r y b e h a v i o r a r e commonly g i v e n i n
terms o f t h e t o t a l amount o f approach o r e x p l o r a t o r y b e h a v i o r o b s e r v e d
Zaj one
35.
over some i n t e r v a l ' o f t i m e .
J u s t what happens on the very f i r s t
presen-
t a t i o n o f t h e n o v e l s t i m u l u s i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r f r o m t h e r e s u l t s
these experiments
report.
While t h e r e appear t o be some c o n d i t i o n s
under w h i c h t h e o r g a n i s m w i l l p r e f e r t o "approach" n o v e l s t i m u l i t o
f a m i l i a r ones--(Berlyne,
1950;
B e r l y n e , 1955;
Dember £ M i l b r o o k , 1956;
Montgomery, 1953;
Berlyne £ S l a t e r ,
1957;
Thiessen £ McGaugh, 1958;
Thomson £ Solomon, 1 9 5 4 ) , i t remains t o be determined
whether t h e s e
"approach" responses are accompanied by p o s i t i v e a f f e c t , o r whether they
are c a u t i o u s e x p l o r a t o r y r e a c t i o n s by means o f w h i c h t h e a n i m a l assesses
whether t h e n o v e l s i t u a t i o n i s a s a f e one*
For i n s t a n c e , K i v y , E a r l ,
and
Walker ( 1 9 5 6 ) have shown t o r a t s two arms o f a maze w h i c h t h e y c o u l d n o t
e n t e r because o f g l a s s p a r t i t i o n s p l a c e d i n f r o n t .
black ( o r both w h i t e ) .
Both arms were
A f t e r t h e p r e - e x p o s u r e p e r i o d one arm had been
changed f r o m b l a c k t o w h i t e ( o r from w h i t e t o b l a c k ) , t h e p a r t i t i o n s were
removed, and t h e r a t s were a l l o w e d t o e n t e r t h e arm o f t h e i r
The
f i n d i n g s showed t h a t t h e r e was
arm whose albedo was
changed.
choice.
a greater p r o b a b i l i t y o f e n t e r i n g the
Moreover, t h e a l t e r n a t i o n e f f e c t
was
f o u n d t o be c o n s i d e r a b l y s t r o n g e r when t h e pre-exposure p e r i o d was
ded f r o m one m i n u t e t o 15 t o 30 m i n u t e s .
exten-
But do t h e s e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e
t h a t t h e r a t s " l i k e d " t h e changed arm b e t t e r ?
Or d i d t h e y e n t e r t h e
arm
t o e x p l o r e i t f o r p o s s i b l e dangers?
The
i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s p o n t a n e o u s - a l t e r n a t i o n r e s e a r c h f o r the
exposure —
a t t i t u d e h y p o t h e s i s have a s i m i l a r a m b i g u i t y .
The f i n d i n g s
i n t h i s a r e a seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t when t h e a n i m a l has two response a l t e r n a t i v e s , e. g., two r o u t e s t o t h e same g o a l , he w i l l t e n d t o a l t e r n a t e
Zajonc
36.
h i s responses on s u c c e s s i v e occasions (see Dember & F o w l e r , 1958, f o r a
t h o r o u g h r e v i e w ) . G l a n z e r (1953) proposed t h a t t h i s phenomenon i s due
t o what he c a l l e d s t i m u l u s s a t i a t i o n .
S t i m u l u s s a t i a t i o n . o c c u r s , acc o r d i n g t o G l a n z e r , when t h e a n i m a l c o n t i n u e s t o be exposed t o a g i v e n
s t i m u l u s and, as a consequence, h i s tendency t o respond t o t h i s s t i m u l u s
i n t h e h a b i t u a l way d i m i n i s h e s .
S t i m u l u s a l t e r n a t i o n and s t i m u l u s s a t i a t i o n phenomena w i l l
consti-
t u t e n e g a t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r t h e e x p o s u r e — a t t i t u d e h y p o t h e s i s i f i t can
be shown t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i o n b e h a v i o r o f t h e a n i m a l i s a symptom o f
h i s changing a t t i t u d e .
Because most o f t h i s work i n v o l v e s a n i m a l
experimentation, i t i s d i f f i c u l t
attitudes.
t o make u n e q u i v o c a l i n f e r e n c e s about
The e x p e r i m e n t e r s i n t h i s area do, t e n d t o use such terms as
" p r e f e r s " , " l i k e s " , "chooses", e t c .
But t h e t y p i c a l e x p e r i m e n t a l
r e s u l t s o n l y show t h a t , g i v e n two a l t e r n a t i v e responses o f e q u a l i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e , t h e a n i m a l w i l l t e n d under some c o n d i t i o n s t o a l t e r n a t e
between them.
A n o t h e r s e t o f d a t a w h i c h m i g h t a l s o be o f some consequence f o r t h e
e x p o s u r e - a t t i t u d e h y p o t h e s i s a r e those i n t h e a r e a o f semantic s a t i a t i o n *
I n a t y p i c a l s e m a n t i c s a t i a t i o n experiment t h e s u b j e c t i s asked t o
r e p e a t a word as many t i m e s as he can d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f 15 seconds.
The g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s i n t h i s a r e a i n d i c a t e t h a t f o l l o w i n g t h i s s o r t o f
r a p i d r e p e t i t i o n t h e word seems t o " l o s e " i t s meaning ( f o r a r e v i e w o f
t h e l i t e r a t u r e see Amster, 1 9 6 4 ) .
Loss o f meaning i s measured by a
d e p a r t u r e f r o m p o l a r i t y on s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s , such as GOOD-BAD,
STRONG-WEAK, e t c . (Lambert & J a k o b o v i t s , 1960).
When r e p e a t e d i n r a p i d
Zajonc
37.
s u c c e s s i o n and r a t e d on some semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e , i m m e d i a t e l y
t h e r e a f t e r t h e words t e n d t o be p l a c e d n e i t h e r t o w a r d one ( e . g., GOOD)
nor t h e o t h e r ( e . g., BAD) and o f t h e s c a l e , b u t a r e r a t e d t o w a r d t h e
n e u t r a l p o i n t o f t h e s c a l e . While s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have demonstrated a
r e d u c t i o n o f p o l a r i z a t i o n f o l l o w i n g r a p i d r e p e t i t i o n o f a word (Das, 1964;
Kanungo £ Lambert, 1963a; 1963b; Messer, J a k o b o v i t z , Kanungo, £ Lambert,
1964; Warren, 1961a, 1961b) t h e r e i s an e q u a l amount o f c o n f l i c t i n g
evidence (Amster & Glasman. 1965; F l o y d , 1962; Reynierse £ B a r c h , 1963;
S c h u l z , Weaver, £ R a d t k e , 1965). A r e d u c t i o n o f p o l a r i t y o f p o s i t i v e
words as a r e s u l t o f r e p e t i t i o n would i n d e e d be embarrassing f o r t h e
e x p o s u r e - a t t i t u d e h y p o t h e s i s . But t h e c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s make t h e case
f o r semantic s a t i a t i o n f a r f r o m s e t t l e d , and a p r o b l e m f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .
Relevant t o t h e e x p o s u r e - a t t i t u d e h y p o t h e s i s i s a l s o t h e M c C l e l l a n d A t k i n s o n - C l a r k - L o w e l l (1963) d i s c r e p a n c y t h e o r y .
These a u t h o r s argue
t h a t t h e r a t i n g o f p l e a s a n t n e s s o f a s t i m u l u s depends on t h e r e c e n t and
on t h e p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e organism w i t h i t .
Given a second e x p e r i e n c e
w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r s t i m u l u s dimension, " p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i s t h e r e s u l t o f
s m a l l e r d i s c r e p a n c i e s o f a sensory o r p e r c e p t u a l event f r o m t h e a d a p t a t i o n
l e v e l o f t h e organism:
ancies".
A l p o r t (1963) exposed Ss f o r some p e r i o d o f t i m e t o a homogen-
eous f i e l d o f r e d l i g h t .
the
negative a f f e c t i s the result o f larger discrep-
F o l l o w i n g t h i s p e r i o d o f a d a p t a t i o n a spot i n
c e n t e r o f t h e f i e l d was made more o r l e s s i n t e n s e and judgments o f
p l e a s a n t n e s s o f t h i s s p o t were c o l l e c t e d .
A l p o r t ' s r e s u l t s gave p a r t i a l ,
but not unequivocal, support t o t h e McClelland-Atkinson-Clark-Lowell
discrepancy hypothesis.
S i m i l a r r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d by tlaber
(1958)
Zajonc
38.
who used t h e r m a l s t i m u l i .
The e x a c t i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e
h y p o t h e s i s cannot be f u l l y e v a l u a t e d .
One
discrepancy
of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i s that
t h e d i s c r e p a n c y h y p o t h e s i s i s n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r about t h e meaning o f
"adaptation l e v e l " .
At t i m e s " a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l " i s t a k e n t o mean t h e
s t i m u l u s t h e a n i m a l has been exposed t o i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r t o t h e s t i m u l u s
w h i c h he i s asked t o r a t e f o r p l e a s a n t n e s s .
At t i m e s , however, t h e
" a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l " i s i n t e r p r e t e d as t h e p r o d u c t o f l e n g t h y and
e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e organism
cumulative
w i t h t h e c r i t i c a l s t i m u l u s dimension.
The
i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e f i r s t f o r m u l a t i o n are e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e
exposure-attitude hypothesis.
The
i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e second f o r m u l a t i o n
must a w a i t t h e f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e concept o f " a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l "
as used by M c C l e l l a n d - A t k i n s o n - C l a r k - L o w e l l .
On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e -
s u l t s on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f exposure t o meaning and a t t i t u d e seem t o do
some damage t o t h e d i s c r e p a n c y t h e o r y .
The d a t a r e v i e w e d here show r a t h e r
c o n s i s t e n t l y a systematic increase i n pleasantness
e x p o s u r e , i . e., f a m i l i a r i t y .
as a f u n c t i o n o f
Perhaps t h e exposures i n t h e s e
experiments
were i n s u f f i c i e n t l y f r e q u e n t t o r e s u l t i n a s t a b l e a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l .
Perhaps a decrement i n f a v o r a b i l i t y w i l l be o b t a i n e d i f t h e number o f
exposures i s f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e d .
However, t h e r e s u l t s shown i n F i g u r e
w h i c h sample words v a r y i n g i n f r e q u e n c y
1
from one t o s e v e r a l t h o u s a n d s ,
and t h e antonym d a t a i n Table 1 , i n which f r e q u e n c i e s v a r y from 2 t o over
75,000 i n 4 1/2
m i l l i o n , and i n which t h e f r e q u e n c y r a t i o s o f t h e compared
antonyms v a r y f r o m .17 t o 336.33, do n o t show t h a t t h e r e i s a tendency t o
p r e f e r moderate f r e q u e n c i e s , nor t o p r e f e r moderate d i f f e r e n c e s i n
frequencies.
Zajonc
39.
Conclusion
The b a l a n c e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s r e v i e w e d
t h i s paper i s i n f a v o r o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s
and r e p o r t e d i n
t h a t mere r e p e a t e d exposure o f
an i n d i v i d u a l t o a s t i m u l u s o b j e c t enhances h i s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d
B u t , as y e t , t h e account books cannot be c l o s e d .
Further
It.
research
must examine t h e boundary c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e e x p o s u r e - a t t i t u d e r e l a t i o n s h i p , f o r i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e neat l i n e a r l o g - f r e q u e n c y — a t t i t u d e
r e l a t i o n s h i p , r e p e a t e d l y observed h e r e , may
conditions.
w e l l break down under some
T h i s f u t u r e r e s e a r c h must, i n p a r t i c u l a r , c o n c e n t r a t e
on
t h e e f f e c t s o f extreme f r e q u e n c i e s o f e x p o s u r e , on d u r a t i o n o f e x p o s u r e ,
on i n t e r - e x p o s u r e i n t e r v a l s , and on many o t h e r s i m i l a r parameters of
mere exposure.
T h i s r e s e a r c h must a l s o assess t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f theo
exposure-attitude relationship t o a greater variety o f stimulus objects.
The q u e s t i o n o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c exposure e f f e c t s i s o f
t h e o r e t i c a l importance.
equal
Does r e p e a t e d exposure t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s
r e s u l t i n t h e enhancement o f a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s i m i l a r
stimuli?
Mere exposure i s a necessary p r e - c o n d i t i o n o f a v a s t v a r i e t y o f
experimental manipulations.
by means o f p e r s u a s i v e
For example, i n a t t e m p t s t o change a t t i t u d e s
communications t h e a t t i t u d e o b j e c t i s mentioned
r e p e a t e d l y , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h e a t t e m p t i s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d
making
t h e a t t i t u d e more f a v o r a b l e o r t o w a r d making i t l e s s f a v o r a b l e .
Making
a t t i t u d e s more f a v o r a b l e s h o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , be e a s i e r t h a n making them
less favorable.
persuasion
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t s t u d i e s on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
i n a t t i t u d e change seldom t r y t o e f f e c t a n e g a t i v e
change,
and a l m o s t n e v e r compare the r e l a t i v e success o f a p r o - p e r s u a s i o n
t h e success o f a c o n - p e r s u a s i o n .
with
A t h e o r y o f a t t i t u d e change t h a t i s
Zajonc
**0.
based on e x p e r i m e n t a l e v i d e n c e o f change i n o n l y one d i r e c t i o n w i l l be
severely
limited.
The p a r t i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t m a n i p u l a t i o n , t o o , i s s u b j e c t t o p o s s i b l e
confounding
w i t h t h e number o f s t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n s .
E r l e b a c h e r and
Archer (1961), f o r i n s t a n c e , r e p o r t t h e curious r e s u l t t h a t a t t h e
c o m p l e t i o n o f t r a i n i n g g r e a t e r numbers o f c o r r e c t responses were
associated w i t h s m a l l e r percentages o f reinforcement.
However, i n t h e
v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t s u b j e c t s worked u n t i l t h e y p e r f o r m e d
i n succession
a predetermined
number o f c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s , t h e same
4
f o r a l l percentages o f reinforcement.
cement was i n t h i s s t u d y c o m p l e t e l y
Therefore, percentage o f r e i n f o r -
confounded w i t h t h e number o f
s t i m u l u s exposures ( a n d a l s o w i t h t h e number d f r e i n f o r c e m e n t s ) .
Although
many a u t h o r s have t r i e d t o cope w i t h t h i s c o n f o u n d i n g
way o r a n o t h e r
i n one
( e . g . , F e s t i n g e r , 1 9 6 1 ; K a n f e r , 1954; O'Connell, 1 9 6 5 ) ,
the methodological
d i f f i c u l t i e s have n o t been c o m p l e t e l y
overcome*
None o f t h e f o u r v a r i a b l e s t h a t a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p a r t i a l - r e i n f o r c e m e n t
e f f e c t — p e r c e n t o f r e i n f o r c e d t r i a l s , number o f t r i a l s , number o f
p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t s , number o f n o n - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s — c a n be s t u d i e d
independently
of a l l the others.
The p r o b l e m o f exposure e f f e c t s i s an i m p o r t a n t one because i t
basic*
I t s s o l u t i o n w i l l have s i g n i f i c a n t consequences f o r o t h e r
p r o b l e m s , b o t h i n i t s t h e o r e t i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
implications.
Is
Zajonc
41.
References
A l l u i s i , E. A., £ Adams, 0. S.
and f i l t e r i n g i n man.
P r e d i c t i n g l e t t e r preferences:
aesthetics
P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1962, 1 4 ,
123-131.
A l p o r t , R.
Perceptual determinants o f a f f e c t .
U n p u b l i s h e d M. A. t h e s i s ,
Hesleyan U n i v e r s i t y , 1953.
Amster, H a r r i e t t .
adaptation?
Semantic s a t i a t i o n and g e n e r a t i o n t
learning?
P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1964, £ 2 , 273-286,
Amster, H a r r i e t t , £ Glasman, L y n e t t e D.
t i v e change.
Anderson, M. H.
V e r b a l r e p e t i t i o n and connota-
J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, i n p r e s s .
L i k e a b l e n e s s r a t i n g s o f 555 p e r s o n a l i t y - t r a i t
Los Angeles:
adjectives.
U n i v e r . o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1964 (mimeo).
B e c k n e l l , J . C., J r . , W i l s o n , W. R., £ B a i r d , J . C. t h e e f f e c t o f f r e quency o f p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e choice o f nonsense
syllables.
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1963., 56_, 165-170.
B e r l y n e , D. E.
behavior.
B e r l y n e , D. E.
r a
*
-
N o v e l t y and c u r i o s i t y as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f e x p l o r a t o r y
B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1950, 4 1 , 68-80.
The a r o u s a l and s a t i a t i o n o f p e r c e p t u a l c u r i o s i t y i n t h e
J o u r n a l o f Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1955,
48, 232-246.
B e r l y n e , D. E.
C o n f l i c t , c u r i o s i t y , and e x p l o r a t o r y b e h a v i o r . New York:
M c G r a w - H i l l , 1960.
B e r l y n e , p. E., £ S l a t e r , J .
and maze l e a r n i n g .
1957, 5 0 , 228-232.
Perceptual c u r i o s i t y , e x p l o r a t o r y behavior
J o u r n a l o f Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y ,
Zajonc*
42.
•
Bogardus, E. S.
Measuring s o c i a l d i s t a n c e . . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d
S o c i o l o g y , 1925, £ , 299-308.
Bogardus, E. S.
Social distance.
Y e l l o w S p r i n g s , Ohio:
Antioch
P r e s s , 1959.
B o v a r d , E. W., J r .
Group s t r u c t u r e and p e r c e p t i o n .
and S o c i a l Psychology,
B r a u n , J . R.
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal
1 9 5 1 , 46,398-405.
Three t e s t s o f t h e M c C l e l l a n d d i s c r e p a n c y h y p o t h e s i s ,
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1962, 1 0 ( 1 ) , 271-274.
Buchanan, M. A.
Graded Spanish word book.
Toronto;
Toronto Univer.
P r e s s , 1927.
'
B u h l e r , C., H e t z e r , H., £ Mabel, F.
Die A f f e k t w i r k s a m k e i t von
,
;
, .
. ,
,
.
. Z e i t s c h r i f t ftfr Psvchplogle.
F r e m h e x t s e i n d r u c k e n i m e r s t e n L e b e n s j a h r , / ZaaxnRyifthcdiK/ 1928
g
107, 30-49.
Cook, S. W., 6 S e l l t i z , C l a i r e .
t h e o r e t i c a l considerations.
Contact and i n t e r g r o u p a t t i t u d e s ;
New York:
some
Research Center f o r Human
R e l a t i o n s , 1952.
Das, J . P.
H y p n o s i s , v e r b a l s a t i a t i o n , v i g i l a n c e , and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s :
A c o r r e l a t i o n a l study.
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l
Psychology,
1964, 6 8 , 72-78.
Dember, W« N., & F o w l e r , H.
Spontaneous a l t e r n a t i o n b e h a v i o r .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1958, 55_, 412-428.
Dember, W. N., 6 M i l l b r o o k , B. A.
o f two b r i g h t n e s s changes.
Free c h o i c e by t h e r a t o f t h e g r e a t e r
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1956, ^ ,
465-H67.
D e u t s c h , M., £ C o l l i n s , Mary E.
I n t e r r a c i a l Housing;
E v a l u a t i o n o f a S o c i a l Experiment.
Pressi 1951.
Minneapolis:
A Psychological
U n i v e r , o f Minnesota
1
Zajonc
43.
D i x o n , T. R., £ D i x o n , J . F.
The i m p r e s s i o n v a l u e o f v e r b s .
V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1964, ;3, 161-165.
Downey, J . E.,
£ Knapp, G. E.
Journal of
The e f f e c t on a m u s i c a l programme o f
f a m i l i a r i t y and o f sequence o f s e l e c t i o n s . I n M. Schoen ( E d . ) , The
i
e f f e c t s o f music.
E a t o n , H e l e n S.
York:
Harcourt, Brace,
1927.
An E n g l i s h , F r e n c h , German, Spanish word
dictionary.
E r d e l y i , H.
New
New
York;:
Dover,
frequency
1940.
The r e l a t i o n between "Radio P l u g s " and sheet s a l e s o f pop-
u l a r music.
E r l e b a c h e r , A.,
J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1940,
£ A r c h e r , E. J .
24, 696-702.
P e r s e v e r a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n o f degree o f
l e a r n i n g and p e r c e n t a g e o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n c a r d s o r t i n g .
Journal
o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 6J2, 510-517.
Fechner, G. T.
Vorschule der A e s t h e t i k . L e i p z i g :
Breitkopf £ Hartel,
1876.
F e s t i n g e r , L.
Group a t t r a c t i o n and membership.
Journal of Social Issues,
1 9 5 1 , 7^0 152-163.
F e s t i n g e r , L.
The p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s o f i n s u f f i c i e n t reward.
Psychologist, 1961, 16,
F l o y d , R.
L.
cations.
F r i n c k e , G.,
1-11.
Semantic s a t i a t i o n :
R e p l i c a t i o n and t e s t o f f u r t h e r i r a p l i -
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1962, 1 1 ( 1 ) , 274.
£ Johnson, R. C.
phone p a i r s .
Word v a l u e and word f r e q u e n c y i n homo-
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1960,
G l a n z e r , M. S t i m u l u s s a t i a t i o n :
t i o n and r e l a t e d phenomena.
257-268.
American
7^, 470.
An e x p l a n a t i o n o f spontaneous a l t e r n a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1953,
60,
Zajonc
44,
Gough. H. G.
Reference Handbook f o r t h e Gough A d j e c t i v e
Berkeley!
U n i v e r . o f C a l i f . I n s t i t u t e o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment and
Research, A p r i l . 1955
Haber, R. N.
(mimeo).
D i s c r e p a n c y f r o m a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l as a source o f a f f e c t .
J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1958,
Homans, G.
Check-List.
C.
Social behavior:
i t s elementary
56, 370-375.
forms. Mew
York:
Hareourt,
B r a c e , 1961.
Howes, D. On t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f word f r e q u e n c y as a v a r i a b l e a f f e c t i n g speed o f r e c o g n i t i o n . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l
1954,
48, 106-112.
Howes, D. H«, 6 Solomon, R. L.
p e r c e p t u a l defense."
Hunt, J . McV.
A n o t e on McGinnies
1
" E m o t i o n a l i t y and
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1950,
5£, 229-234.
T r a d i t i o n a l p e r s o n a l i t y theory i n the l i g h t of recent
evidence.
James, W.
Psychology,.
American S c i e n t i s t , 1965,
The
53, 80-96.
p r i n c i p l e s o f psychology. Vol. I I ,
Johnson, R. C., Thomson, C. W.,
£ F r i n c k e , G.
c y , and v i s u a l d u r a t i o n t h r e s h o l d s .
New
York:
H o l t , 1890.
Word v a l u e s , word f r e q u e n -
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, I 9 6 0 ,
67, 332-342.
K a d i n g , F. W.
Berlin:
H a u f i g k e i t s w o r t e r b u c h d e r deutschen Sprache.
Mittler,
K a n f e r , F. H.
1948.
The e f f e c t o f p a r t i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n a c q u i s i t i o n and
t i n c t i o n o f a c l a s s o f v e r b a l responses.
P s y c h o l o g y , 1954,
Kanungo, R. N,,
Experimental
48, 424-432.
£ Lambert, W. E.
Paired-associate
o f s t i m u l u s and response s a t i a t i o n .
1963,
Journal of
ex-
54, 135-144 ( a ) .
l e a r n i n g as a f u n c t i o n
B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Psychology.
Zajonc
45.
Kanungo, R. N., £ Lambert, W, E,
Semantic s a t i a t i o n and m e a n i n g f u l n e s s .
American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 76, 421-428 ( b ) .
K i v y , P. N., E a r l , R. W.,
t*
o n
*
£ Walker, E. L.
S t i m u l u s c o n t e x t and s a t i a -
J o u r n a l o f Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1956,
49, 90-92.
Kramer, M.
,
R e s i d e n t i a l c o n t a c t as a d e t e r m i n a n t o f a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d
Negroes.
U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D.
Krugman, H. E.,
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r . o f Chicago, 1950.
£ H a r t l e y , E. C.
The
learning of tastes.
P u b l i c Opinion
Q u a r t e r l y , 1960, 24, 621-631.
Krugman, H. E.
A f f e c t i v e response t o music as a f u n c t i o n o f f a m i l i a r i t y *
4
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1943, 38, 388-392.
Lambert, W. E., £ J a k o b o v i t s , L. A.
i n t e n s i t y o f meaning.
V e r b a l s a t i a t i o n and changes i n t h e
J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1960,
60, 376-383.
L o r e n z , K.
L ' i n s t i n c t dans l e comportement de l a n i m a l e t de l'homme,
Parist
1
Masson, 1956.
MacKenzie, Barbara K.
t o w a r d Negroes.
The i m p o r t a n c e o f c o n t a c t i n d e t e r m i n i n g a t t i t u d e s
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1948,
4 3 , 4.
H a n d l e r , G.
A s s o c i a t i v e f r e q u e n c y and a s s o c i a t i v e p r e p o t e n c y as measures
o f response t o nonsense s y l l a b l e s .
American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y ,
1955, 68, 662-665.
Maslow, A. H.
The i n f l u e n c e o f f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n on p r e f e r e n c e .
Journal
o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1937, 2 1 , 162-180.
M c C l e l l a n d , D. C,, A t k i n s o n , J . W., C l a r k , R. A., £ L o w e l l , E. L.
The
achievement m o t i v e . New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1953.
Zajonc
46.
MoGinnies, E.
Review,
E m o t i o n a l i t y and p e r c e p t u a l defense. P s y c h o l o g i c a l
1949, 56, 244-251.
Hesaer, S., J a k o b o v i t s , L. A., Kanungo, R. N., £ Lambert, H. A.
Semantic s a t i a t i o n o f words and numbers.
B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of
P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 5£, 155-163.
Meyer, M*
E x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s i n the psychology o f music.
America^
J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 1903, 14, 456-478,
M i l l e r , G. A.
language and communication.
New Yorks
M i l l e r , G* A., Newman, E. 3.. £ Friedman, E, A*
M c G r a w - H i l l . 1951*
Length-frequency s t a t f s 4
tics far w r i t t e n E n g l i s h .
I n f o r m a t i o n and C o n t r o l , 1958, JL,
370-398.
M i r o n , M. S.
A c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f p h o n e t i c symbolism.
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 1 , 6 2 , 623-630.
Montgomery, K. C.
E x p l o r a t o r y b e h a v i o r as a f u n c t i o n o f " s i m i l a r i t y "
situations.
o f stimulus/xzJaxaxxBRax
J o u r n a l o f Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l
P s y c h o l o g y , 1953, 46, 129-133.
Moore, H. T., £ Gi H i l a n d , A. R.
The immediate and l o n g t i m e e f f e c t s
o f c l a s s i c a l and p o p u l a r phonograph
Psychology. 1924,
selections.
Journal of Applied
309-323.
M o s i e r , C. I . A p s y c h o m e t r i c s t u d y o f meaning.
Journal of Social
P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 4 1 , 13, 123-140.
M u l l , Helen K.
The e f f e c t o f r e p e t i t i o n upon enjoyment o f modern music*
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1957, 43, 155-162.
Munsinger, H. L. M e a n i n g f u l symbols as r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l i .
o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 6a, 665-668.
Journal
Zaj one
47.
N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n Research C e n t e r , Jobs and o c c u p a t i o n s :
evaluation.
power:
A popular
I n R. B e n d i x £ S. B. L i p s i t ( E d s . ) , C l a s s , s t a t u s , and
A research i n s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .
Free P r e s s ,
Glencoe, 1 1 1 . :
The
1953.
Newcomb, T. M. S t a b i l i t i e s u n d e r l y i n g changes i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c tion.
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology,
O'Connell, D. C.
1963, 66, 376-386.
Concept l e a r n i n g and v e r b a l c o n t r o l under p a r t i a l
r e i n f o r c e m e n t and subsequent r e v e r s a l and n o n - r e v e r s a l s h i f t s .
J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology,
Osgood, C. E.,
S u c i , G. J , , £ Tannenbaum, P.H.
meaning.
Urbana:
Palermo, D. S.,
tion.
1957.
Word a s s o c i a t i o n norms-grade s c h o o l
Minneapolis:
U n i v e r . o f Minnesota P r e s s ,
Changes o f a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r c o l o r c o m b i n a t i o n s .
g i c a l Review, 1919,
Postman, L.
The measurement o f
Univer. o f I l l i n o i s Press,
£ Jenkins, J. J.
through college.
Pepper, S. C.
1965, £ 9 , 144-151.
1964.
Psycholo-
26_, 389-396.
The e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l y s i s o f m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s I n
percep-
I n J. S.. Brown ( E d . ) , C u r r e n t t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h i n
motivation.
R e y n l e r s e , J . H.,
Lincoln:
U n i v e r . o f Nebraska P r e s s , 1953,
£ B a r c h , A. M.
Semantic s a t i a t i o n and
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1963, 13_ ( 3 ) ,
New
York:
generalization.
790.
S a r t r e , J . P.
Words.
S c h r e u d e r , H.
P e j o r a t i v e sense development.
S c h u l z , R. W.,
Weaver, G. E,,
Braziller,
£ Radtke, R. C.
Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 1965,
59-108.
1964.
Groningen:
Noordhoff,
1929.
Verbal s a t i a t i o n ? ?
2_, 43-44.
Felicia
Siegel,/Katofcx S.
E f f e c t s o f word f r e q u e n c y and a f f e c t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n on
v e r b a l responding d u r i n g e x t i n c t i o n .
S o c i a l Psychology,
i n press.
Journal of Personality
and
Zajonc
48,
Solomon, R. L., £ Postman, L. Usage as a d e t e r m i n a n t o f v i s u a l d u r a t i o n
t h r e s h o l d s o f words. J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1952,
4 3 , 195-201.
S t r a s s b u r g e r , F., £ W e r t h e i m e r , M.
The d i s c r e p a n c y h y p o t h e s i s o f a f f e c t
and a s s o c i a t i o n v a l u e o f nonsense s y l l a b l e s .
Psychological
Reports,
1959, S, 528.
T h i e s s e n , D. D.,
£ McGaugh, J . L.
C o n f l i c t and c u r i o s i t y i n t h e r a t .
Paper r e a d a t Western P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Monterey, C a l i f . ,
1958.
Thomson, W. R.,
£ Solomon, L. M. Spontaneous
pattern discrimination i n
t h e r a t . J o u r n a l o f Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y ,
1954, 47, 104-107.
T h o r n d i k e , E. L., £ lK>rge, I . The t e a c h e r ' s word book o f 30,000 words.
Mew
York:
Teachers C o l l e g e ,
Underwood, B. J .
1944.
V e r b a l l e a r n i n g and t h e e d u c a t i v e p r o c e s s .
Harvard
E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1959, 29, 107-117.
v a n d e r Beke, G. E.
v a n Dongen, G. A.
French word book.
Hew York:
Amelioratives i n English.
V e r v e e r , E. M., B a r r y , H.,
i t y with repetition.
M a c m i l l a n , 1929.
Rotterdam:
J r . , £ B o u s f i e l d , H. A.
De V r i e s , 1933.
Change I n
affectiv-
American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1933, 45,
130-134.
Warren, R. M.
I l l u s o r y changes o f d i s t i n c t speech upon r e p e t i t i o n - t h e
verbal transformation effect.
1961,1 52, 249-258.(a)
B r i t i s h Journal o f Psychology,
Zajonc
49.
Warren, R. M.
I l l u s o r y changes i n r e p e a t e d words;
between young a d u l t s and t h e aged.
Differences
American J o u r n a l o f Psychology
1961, 74, 506-516.(b)
Washburn, M. F., C h i l d , M. S.,
£ A b e l , T. M,
r e p e t i t i o n on t h e p l e a s a n t n e s s
The e f f e c t s 'of m u s i c , M.
The
e f f e c t s o f immediate
o r u n p l e a s a n t n e s s o f music.
Schoen ( E d . ) , New
York;
In
Harcourt, Brace,
1927.
Wiebe, G.
The
e f f e c t s o f r a d i o p l u g g i n g on s t u d e n t s
p o p u l a r songs.
9
opinions
of
J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1940, _24.i 721-727.
4
W i l n e r , D. M.,
W a l k l e y , R o s a b e l l e P.,
6 Cook, S. W,
Residential
p r o x i m i t y and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s i n p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s .
Journal of Social Issues, 8 ^ 1 ,
W i l s o n , L. R.,
6 B e c k n e l l , J. C. The
1952.
r e l a t i o n between t h e a s s o c i a t i o n
v a l u e , p r o n u n c i a b i l i t y , and a f f e c t i v i t y o f nonsense s y l l a b l e s .
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 52, 47-49.
Zajonc
50
Footnotes
* I w i s h t o t h a n k C h r i s t i n e L i n d e r , Dik van K r e v e l d , and James J.
T a y l o r f o r t h e i r i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e i n c a r r y i n g put v a r i o u s phases
of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l work*
I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o E l i n o r e C o t t r e l l and
P r o f . Robert P* Weeks f o r making t h e i r s t u d e n t s a v a i l a b l e as j u d g e s and
subjects.
2
N.b.:
The MORE-LESS r a t i o i n t h i s t e x t i s 7:1 up t o now.
3
0 n e f i n d s i n t h e course o f t h i s endeavor t h a t t h e antonymio r e l a -
t i o n i s seldom s y m m e t r i c .
According t o t h e standard sources, i f Y i s
l i s t e d as t h e antonym o f X, t h e n chances a r e t h a t n o t X b u t Z i s l i s t e d
as t h e antonym o f Y.
F o r i n s t a n c e , i n t h e 1 9 6 0 - e d i t i o n o f Webster's
New C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y , EXTEND i s g i v e n as t h e antonym o f CONTRACT.
<
L o o k i n g up EXTEND we f i n d , however, t h a t i t s antonym i s REDUCE. The
antonym o f REDUCE, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , i s INCREASE.
The antonym o f
INCREASE i s DECREASE, t h e antonym o f DECREASE i s AMPLIFY, t h e antonym o f
AMPLIFY i s CONDENSE, and t h e antonym o f CONDENSE i s EXPAND. We can u l t i m a t e l y c l o s e t h e c i r c l e , because CONTRACT, a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s s o u r c e ! i s
the
antonym o f EXPAND.
**Iterns f o r w h i c h t h e r e was no f r e q u e n c y i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e T h o r n d i k e -
Lorge count were n o t i n c l u d e d i n c o m p u t i n g t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t .
i t e m s were p r i m a r i l y
These
o f t h e hyphenated f o r m , such as OPEN-MINDED,
GOOD-HUMORED, WELL-SPOKEl),FAULT-FINDING, ULTRA-CRITICAL, WISHY-WASHY,
etc.
Zajonc
51.
^Warren T. Norman, p e r s o n a l communication*
6
T h e one-sidedness o f a t t i t u d e change r e s e a r c h i s due t o one o r
both o f two f a c t o r s !
(a) the social-action
interest o f early attitude
s t u d i e s , o r ( b ) t h e r e l a t i v e g r e a t e r ease o f changing a t t i t u d e s i n t h e
p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n , w h i c h was h y p o t h e s i z e d above.
Zajonc
52
Table 1
Semantic P r e f e r e n c e and Frequency o f 154 Antonym P a i r s
T3
u o>
00 4J
co a
Si
M >
Q) *H
m 4J
a) cd
SI
<U 4J
o a)
m a)
a) 4J
41 bp
£ <
o
a
£ 8
E *
•X Xx
SB <
<U
M *W
PM O
M •H
>t O
• at
(b)
(a)
930
239
49
4
2354
450
100
ABLE
UNABLE
100
ATTENTIVE
INATTENTIVE
100
BETTER
WORSE
100
ENCOURAGE
DISCOURAGE
205
100
FRIENDLY
UNFRIENDLY
357
100
HONEST
DISHONEST
393
100
POSSIBLE
IMPOSSIBLE
1289
ADVANCE
RETREAT
BEST
WORST
1850
CLEAN
DIRTY
781
99
COMFORTAB Ii5
UNCOMFORTABLE
348
99
FAVORABLE
UNFAVORABLE
99
GOOD
BAD
99
GRATEFUL
UNGRATEFUL
194
99
PEACE
WAR
472
99
PRESENT
ABSENT
1075
65
99
PURE
IMPURE
197
4
99
99
99
4
( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page)
452
93
5122
147
19
41
459
105
292
221
112
25
1001
13
1118
Zajonc
53
Table 1 continued
99
RESP0NSIBU2
IRRESPONSIBIE
267
30
99
REWARD
PUNISHMENT
154
80
99
RIGHT
WRONG
3874
890
99
SMILE
FROWN
2143
216
99
TOLERANT
INTOLERANT
42
13
99
VICTORY
DEFEAT
118
166
98
ADD
SUBTRACT
98
ADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
404
41
98
AGREEABLE
DISAGREEABLE
58
43
98
CAPABLE
INCAPABLE
176
'30
98
DESIRABI£
UNDESIRABLE
160
42
98
FIND
LOSE
2698
593
98
FORTUNATE
UNFORTUNATE
136
108
98
FORWARD
BACKWARD
736
139
98
FRIEND
ENEMY
2553
683
98
HIGH
LOW
1674
1?24
98
HONORABIE
DISHONORABLE
58
8
98
KIND
UNKIND
98
LEGAL
ILLEGAL
98
LIFE
98
2018
6
1521
34
180
34
DEATH
4804
815
LOVE
HATE
5129
756
98
MATURE
IMMATURE
91
17
98
MORAL
IMMORAL
272
19
98
PLEASANT
UNPLEASANT
457
114
98
POLITE
IMPOLITE
( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page)
115
3
54
Zajonc
Table 1 continued
98
RELIABLE
UNRELIABLE
78
98
SUCCESS
FAILURE
573
262
98
VALID
INVALID
22
56
98
VOLUNTARY
INVOLUNTARY
28
26
97
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
95
59
97
COMPETENT
INCOMPETENT
69
23
97
FOUND
LOST
2892
97
IMPORTANT
UNIMPORTANT
1130
40
97
LIKELY
UNLIKELY
364
25
97
ON
OFF
97
PATIENCE
IMPATIENCE
139
39
97
PATIENT
IMPATIENT
392
79
97
PATIENTLY
IMPATIENTLY
85
82
97
POPULAR
UNPOPULAR
418
12
97
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
92
28
12
30224
9
1074
3644
97
PROFITABLE
UNPROFITABLE
57
97
PROMOTE
DEMOTE
90
97
REMEMBER
FORGET
1682
882
154
32
66
13
97
SATISFACTORY
UNSATISFACTORY
2
97
WILLINGLY
UNWILLINGLY
96
ABOVE
BELOW
941
529
96
ACTIVE
PASSIVE
186
29
96
EARLY
LATE
1022
2859
BACK
1094
6587
EMPTY
1129
395
i
96
FRONT
96
FULL
( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t page)
Zajonc
55
Table 1 continued
96
LIVE
DIE
96
PRESENCE
ABSENCE
96
PROBABLE
96
4307
1079
277
163
IMPROBABLE
64
14
RATIONAL
IRRATIONAL
33
96
REASONABLE
UNREASONABLE
155
96
RESOLUTELY
IRRESOLUTELY
30
96
STRONG
WEAK
770
276
96
SUCCEED
FAIL
264
620
96
SUPERIOR
INFERIOR
166
40
96
TIMELY
UNTIMELY
27
95
ACCEPT
REJECT
667
51
95
DIRECT
INDIRECT
416
23
95
INCLUDE
EXCLUDE
533
38
95
INCREASE
DECREASE
781
86
95
MOST
LEAST
3443
1259
95
PRACTICAL
IMPRACTICAL
340
12
95
REGULARLY
IRREGULARLY
122
95
RICH
POOR
656
857
95
WEALTH
POVERTY
243
146
94
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
171
45
94
CONSCIOUS
UNCONSCIOUS
299
116
94
LEADER
FOLLOWER
373
45
94
OBEDIENT
DISOBEDIENT
94
TOGETHER
APART
93
AGREEMENT
DISAGREEMENT
(Table c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t page)
70
9
56
4
' 6
5
4
1835
276
143
21
56
Zajonc
Table 1 continued
93
CERTAIN
UNCERTAIN
800
107
93
FIRST
LAST
5154
3517
93
MAJOR
MINOR
366
83
93
NORMAL
ABNORMAL
335
43
93
REGULAR
IRREGULAR
340
44
93
UNSELFISH
SELFISH
32
137
93
UPWARDS
DOWNWARDS
9
40
93
WIDE
NARROW
593
391
92
MORE
LESS
8015
1357
92
NOW
THEN
7665
10208
92
UP
DOWN
11718
92
UPWARD
DOWNWARD
111
27
92
VISIBIE
INVISIBLE
110
74
92
YES
NO
2202
11742
91
ALWAYS
NEVER
3285
5715
91
FAMILIAR
UNFAMILIAR
91
MAXIMUM
91
5534
345
39
MINIMUM
43
86
OPTIMISM
PESSIMISM
28
11
90
AGREE
DISAGREE
729
38
90
NECESSARY
UNNECESSARY
715
107
90
OVER
UNDER
7520
2961
90
SWEET
SOUR
679
102
90
WHOLE
PART
1663
1585
89
LIGHT
DARK
2387
1005
88
DEEP
SHALLOW
( T a b l e c o n t i n u e d on n e x t page)
881
104
Zajonc
57
Table 1 continued
88
SMOOTH
ROUGH
346
294
86
WHITE
BLACK
2663
1083
85
IN
OUT
75253
13649
85
INDEPENDENT
DEPENDENT
134
18
84
FAST
SLOW
514
434
83
COMEDY
TRAGEDY
126
189
83
FASTEN
UNFASTEN
142
16
79
DAY
NIGHT
4549
3385
78
DRY.
WET
592
319
78
LONG
78
UNSHAKEN
77
USUALLY
74
UPSTAIRS
72
INNER
72
INTERIOR
70
NEAR
70
UNLIMITED
68
INSIDE
68
WRAP
4
67
INFINITE
67
INTERNAL
65
COMING
64
INFORMAL
63
ANSWER
63
MEN
SHORT
5362
887
6
83
UNUSUALLY
718
91
DOWNSTAIRS
314
226
OUTER
143
97
EXTERIOR
185
48
1338
1835
LIMITED
43
67
OUTSIDE'
656
921
UNWRAP
293
\17
FINITE
71
2
EXTERNAL
36
26
1486
4623
64
166
QUESTION
2132
1302
WOMEN
3614
2552
SHAKEN
FAR
GOING
FORMAL
(Table continued on next page)
58
Zajonc
Table 1 continued
61
DIFFERENT
SAME
59
INWARD
OUTWARD
59
MAN
58
1194
1747
43
54
WOMEN
7355
2431
HUSBAND
WIFE
1788
1668
58
USUAL
UNUSUAL
516
273
57
OFFENSE
DEFENSE
86
223
55
HOT
COLD
1006
1092
55
IMPORT
EXPERT
86
88
OUTWARDLY
32
33
33
59
2606
2720
54
26
55
INWARDLY
54
INCONSPICUOUS
CONSPICUOUS
52
PLAY
WORK
51
MORTAL
IMMORTAL
Zajonc
59
Table 2
Frequency Ranks of English, French, German, and Spanish Antonym Pairs
ENGLISH*
FRENCH
GERMAN
SPANISH
ABIE (3)
CAPABLE(3)
FAHIG(4)
CAPAZ(3)
UNABLE(9)
INCAPABLE(4)
UNFAHIG(ll)
INCAPAZ(7)
ACCEPT(3)
ACCEPTER(2)
ANNEHMEN(2)
ACCEPTAR(3)
REJECT(9)
RE JETER (5)
ABLEHNEN(5)
RECHAZAR(5)
ACTIVE(6)
ACTIF(6)
TATIG(5)
ACTIV0(6) *
PASSIVE(14)
PASSIF(?)
UNTATIG(?)
PASIVO(IO)
ANSWER(2)
REPONSEOO
ANTWORT (3)
RESPUESTA(4)
QUESTION(3)
QUESTION(2)
FRAGE(2)
PREGUNTA(4)
BETTER(2)
MEILLEUR(2)
BESSER(2)
MEJOR(2)
WORSE(4)
PIRE(5) .
SCHLECHTER(?)
PEOR(2)
CERTAIN(2)
CERTAIN(2)
SICHER(2)
CIERTO(2)
UNCERTAIN(9)
INCERTAIN(IO)
UNSICHER(9)
INCIERT0(9)
CLEAN(3)
PROPRE(2)
SAUBER(9)
LIMPIOO)
DIRTY(7)
SALE(7)
SCHMUTZIG(12)
SUCIO(6)
COMEDY(9)
COMEDIE(6)
KOMODIE(9)
COMEDIA(4)
TRAGEDY(9)
TRAG&)IE(9)
TRAGODIE(ll)
TRAGEDIA(B)
COMFORTABLE(5)
A L'AISE(4)
BEQUEM(5)
COMODO(7)
UNCOMFORTABI£(ll)
INCOMFORTABLE (9)
UNBEQUEM(IO)
INCOMODO(IO)
(Table continued on next page)
Zajonc
60
Table 2 continued
DAY(2)
J0UR(2)
TAG (2)
DIA(2)
NIGHT(2)
NUIT(2)
NACHT(2)
NOCHE(2)
DIRECT(3)
DIRECT(6)
DIREKT(3)
DIRECT0(4)
INDIRECT(12)
INDIRECT(12)
INDIREKT(8)
INDIRECTO(8)
DRY (3)
SEC(3)
TROCKEN(5)
SECO(3)
WET (4)
MOUILLE(5)
NASS(9)
MOJADO(6)
EARLY(2)
TOT(3)
FRUH(2)
TEMPRAN0(4)-
LATE(2)
TARD(2)
SPAT(2)
TARDE(2)
FAST (2)
VITE(2)
SCHNELL(2)
PRONTO (2)
SLOW(3)
LENT (4)
LANGSAM(3)
LENTO(4)
FIND(2)
TROUVER(2)
FINDEN(2)
ENCONTRAR(2)
LOSE(3)
FERDRE(2)
VERLIEREN(2)
PERDER(2)
FRIEND(2)
AMI(2)
FREUND(2)
AMIGO(2)
ENEMY(3)
ENNEMI(2)
FEIND(2)
ENEMIGO(2)
FULL(2)
PLEIN(2)
VOLL(2)
LLENO(2)
EMPTY(4)
VIDE(4)
LEER(4)
VACI0(4)
GOOD (2)
BON(2)
GUT (2)
BUEN(2)
BAD (2)
MAUVAIS(2)
SCHLECHT(3)
MAL(2)
(Table continued on next page)
Zajonc
61
Table 2 continued
HIGH(2)
L0W(2)
HAUT(2)
HOCH(2)
ALTO(2)
BAS(2)
N IED RIG (4)
BAJO(2)
H0T(2)
CHAUD(3)
HEISS(5)
CAL3ENTE (5)
COLD(2)
FROID(3)
KALT(3)
FRI 0(2)
HUSBAND(3)
MARI(3)
MANN(2)
ESP0S0(2)
WIFE(3)
FEMME(2)
FRAU(2)
ESP0SA(2)
IMPORT(7)
IMPORTATION(11)
EINFUHR(ll)
IMPORTACI6N(?)
EXPORT(11)
EXPORTATION(IO)
AUSFUHR(12)
EXP0RTACIQN(13)
INCREASE(3)
AUGMENTATION(10) VERMEHRUNG(6)
AUMENT0(5)
DECREASE(8)
REDUCTION(11)
VERMINDERUNG(ll)
DIMINUCION(?)
INDEPENDENT(6)
INDEPENDENT(7)
SELBSTSTANDIG(4)
INDEEENDIENTE(5)
DEPENDENT(14)
DEPENDENT ( ? )
ABHANGIG(6)
DEPENDIENTE(9)
LIFE(2)
VIE (2)
LEBEN(2)
VIDA(2)
DEATH(2)
MORT(2)
TOD(2)
MUERTE(2)
LIGHT(2)
CLAIR(3)
HELL(4)
CLAR0(2)
DARK(2)
SOMBRE(3)
DUNKEL(3)
0BSCUR0(2)
LIVE(2)
VIVRE(2)
LEBEN(2)
VIVIR(2)
DIE(2)
MOURIR(2)
STERBEN(2)
M0RIR(2)
LONG(2)
LONG(2)
LANG (2)
LARGO(2)
SHORT(2)
COURT(3)
KURZ(2)
C0RT0(3)
(Table continued on next page)
Zajonc
62
(
Table 2 continued
LOVE(2)
AIMER(2)
LIEBEN(2)
AMAR(2)
HATE(4)
HAIR(6)
HASSEN(6)
ODIAR(7)
MORE(2)
PLUS(2)
MEHR(2)
MAS(2)
LESS(2)
MOIN(2)
WENIGER(2)
MENOS(2)
NEAR(2)
PRES(3)
NAH(2)
CERCA(2)
FAR(2)
LOIN (2)
FERN(2)
LEJOS(2)
PEACE(3)
PAIX(3)
FRIEDE(3)
PAZ(2)
WAR(2)
GUERRE(3)
KRTEG(2)
GUERRA(2) '
POSITIVE(9)
POSITIF(6)
POSITIV(8)
P0SITIVO(7)
NEGATIVE(11)
MEGATIF(ll)
NEGATIV(?)
NEGATIVO(7)
POSSIBLE(3)
POSSIBLE(2)
MOGLICH(2)
POSSIBLE(2)
IMPOSSIBLE(5)
IMPOSSIBLE(3)
UNM6GLICH(3)
IMP0SSIBI£(2)
PRESENCE(4)
PRESENCE(2)
ANWESENHEIT(9)
PRESENCIAO)
ABSENCE(7)
ABSENCE(5)
ABWESENHEIT(9)
AUSENCIA(4)
REWARD(6)
RECOMPENSE(6)
ANERKENNUNG(5)
PREMI0(4)
PUNISHMENT (6)
PUNITION(12)
STRAFE(4)
CASTIGO(4)
RIGHT(2)
JUSTE (2)
RICHTIG(2)
JUSTO(3)
WRONG(3)
FAUX(3)
FALSCH(3)
MAL(2)
STRONG(2)
FORT(2)
STARK (2)
EUERTE(2)
WEAK(3)
FAIBLE(3)
SCHWACH(3)
DEBIL(4)
(Table continued on next page)
Zajonc
63
Table 2 continued
SWEET(2)
D0UX(2)
SUSS(4)
DULCE(2)
S0UR(9)
AMER(4)
SAUER(9)
AMARG0(4)
T0GETHER(2)
ENSEMBLE (2)
ZUSAMMEN(2)
JUNTO(2)
APART(4)
SEPARE(2)
GETRENNT(3)
SEPARADO(3)
VICTORY(5)
VICT0IRE(4)
SIEG(4)
VICT0RIA(5)
DEFEAT (7)
DEFAITE(8)
NIEDERIAGE (8)
DERROTA(9)
WEALTH (4)
RICHESSE(5)
VEKMOGEN(4)
RIQUEZA(3)
POVERTY(7)
PAUVRETE(12)
ARMUT(IO)
P0BREZA(5)'
WHITE (2)
BLANC (2.)
WEISS(2)
BLANC0(2)
BLACK (2)
N0IR(2)
SCHWARTZ (3)
NEORO(2)
WIDE(2)
LARGE(2)
BREIT(4)
ANCHO(3)
NARROW(3)
ETROIT(3)
SCHMAL(6)
ANGOSTO(8)
(
(*) The figures i n brackets Indicate frequency ranks:
(1) means that
the word i s among the 500 most frequent words, (2) that i t Is among the
1000 most frequent words, (3) that i t i s among the 1500 most frequent
words, etc.
The source of these counts i s Eaton (1940).
Zajonc
64.
Table 3
Free Response Emission as a Function of Word-frequency
and Word Value (from Siegel, 1960)
Word value
Word frequency
)T
Low
Medium
High
Good
7.43
9.43
9.68
8.85
Medium
6.28
8.57
8.71
7.85
Bad
6.28
5.86
7.71
6.61
?
6.66
7.95
8.70
Zaj one
65.
Table 4
Polar Opposites of the Semantic
D i f f e r e n t i a l and Their Frequencies
Evaluative Factor.
BEAUTIFUL
UGLY
987
178
CLEAN
DIRTY
781
221
FAIR
UNFAIR
561
59
FRAGRANT
FOUL
66
39'
GOOD
BAD
GRATEFUL '
UNGRATEFUL
HAPPY
SAD
HARMONIOUS
5122
1001
194
13
1449
202
DISSONANT
* 26
9
HONEST
DISHONEST-
393
41
KIND
CRUEL
1521
NICE
AWFUL
630
370
PLEASANT
UNPLEASANT
457
114
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
92
28
REPUTABLE.
DISREPUTABLE
23
21
SACRED
PROFANE
102
13
SUCCESSFUL
UNSUCCESSFUL
352
14
SWEET
SOUR
679
TRUE
FALSE
1711
WISE
FOOLISH
420
(continued on next page)
165
102
209
223
(Table 4 continued)
Table 4 '
Polar Opposites of the Semantic
D i f f e r e n t i a l and Their Frequencies
Potency Factor
BASS
TREBLE
BRAVE
28
17
COWARDLY-
216
26
DEEP
SHALLOW
881
104
HARD
SOFT
1909
549
HEAVY
LIGHT
680
1005
LARGE
SMALL
1697
1818
MASCULINE
FEMININE
54
40
MATURE
YOUTHFUL
91
99
ROUGH •
SMOOTH
294
346
RUGGED
DELICATE
37
248
SEVERE
LENIENT
119
9
STRONG
WEAK
770
276,
TENACIOUS
YIELDING
22
7
THICK
THIN
443
646
WIDE
NARROW
593
391
Zaj one
(Table 4 continued)
67
Table 4
Polar Opposites of the Semantic
D i f f e r e n t i a l and Their Frequencies
^ A c t i v i t y Factor
ACTIVE
PASSIVE
514
434
BRIGHT
DARK
645
1005
EXCITABLE
CALM
7
267
FAST
SLOW
514
434
HERETICAL
ORTHODOX
2
21
HOT
COLD
1006
1092
RASH
CAUTIOUS
37
48
SHARP
DULL
324
289
Table 5
Preference Ranks and Frequency. Counts for Ten Countries and Ten C i t i e s
C O U N T R I E S
Country
Frequency
C I T I E S
Average
Preference
Rank
City
Frequency
Average
Preference
Rank
ENGLAND
497
2^.67
BOSTON
255
2.75
CANADA
130
3.33
CHICAGO
621
3.08
HOLLAND
59
3.42
MILWAUKEE
124
3.83
GREECE
31
4. 00
SAN DIEGO
9
4.25
224
4.92
DAYTON
14
5.75
ARGENTINA
15
6.08
BALTIMORE
68
6.08
VENEZUELA
9
6.58
OMAHA
28
7.08
BULGARIA
3
7.75
TAMPA
5
7.08
HONDURAS
1
7.92
PASO
1
7.50
SYRIA
4
8.34
SAGINAW
2
7.58
GERMANY
Table 6
Preference ratings of t r e e s , f r u i t s , vegetables and flowers, and t h e i r corresponding frequencies
Trees
f*
A.P.R.**
Fruits
f:
A.P.R.
Vegetables
f
A.P.R.
Flowers
\
f
A.P.R.'
i
PINE
172
4.79
APPLE
220
5.13
CORN
227
4.X7
ROSE
801
75
4.42
CHERRY
167
5.00
POTATO
384
4.13
LILY
164' 4.79
125
4.00
STRAWBERRY
121
-4.83
LETTUCE
142
4.00
VIOLET
109
4.58
S
3.96
PEAR
62
4.38
CARROT
96
3.57
GERANIUM
27
3.83
BIRCH
34
3.83
GRAPEFRUIT
33
4,00
RADISH
43
3.13
DAISY
62 '3.79
FIR
14
3.75
CANTALOUPE
3.75
ASPARAGUS
5
2.33
HYACINTH
SASSAFRAS
2
3.00
AVOCADO
16
2v71
CAULIFLOWER
27
1.96
ALOES
1
2.92
POMEGRANATE
8
2.63
BROCCOLI
18
YEW
3
2.83
GOOSEBERRY
5
2.63
LEEK
, ACACIA
4
2.75
MANGO
2
2.38
PARSNIP
WALNUT
i
OAK
ROSEWOOD
l
(*) Frequency of usage (L-Count).
1.5
(**) Average preference rating;
•
5.55
16
3.08
YUCCA
1
2.83
1.96
WOODBINE
4 2.87
3
1.96
ANEMONE
8 2.54
3
1.92
COWSLIP
2
2.54
Zajonc
70,
Figure Captions
Fig.
1*
Average frequencies of 555 adjectives rated for favorability
(Based on data from Anderson, 1964),
Figo 2
Average rated affective connotation of nonsense words and
Chinese characters as a function of frequency of exposure.
Fig. 3.
Average rated affective connotation of nonsense words exposed
with low and high frequencies.
Fig.
4.
Average rated affective connotation of Chinese characters
exposed with low and high frequencies.
- 4
Fig.
5.
Average attitude toward photographs as a function of
frequency of exposure.
Figo 6«
Average attitude toward photographs exposed with low and
high frequencies.
500
300
JC
y
IOO
BO
30
f
J
f
J
r«83
•
Io
OI.OO
I.OI2.00
3012.0I4.00
3.00
AVERAGE FAVORABILITY
PIG. 1.
4-.OI5.0IBOO
6.00
RATING
Average f r e q u e n c i e s o f 555 a d j e c t i v e s r a t e d f o r
f a v o r a b i l i t y (based on d a t a f r o m A n d e r s o n , 1 9 6 4 ) .
CHINESE CHARACTERS
NONSENSE
WORDS
? /
9
1
2
5
IO
25
FREQUENCY
Average r a t e d a f f e c t i v e connotation of nonsense words
and Chinese c h a r a c t e r s as a f u n c t i o n of frequency of
exposure*
I KTtTAF
LOW FREQUENCY
AFWORBU
HIGH
FREQUENCY
SARICIK
BIWOJNI
NANSOMA
KADIRGA
ENANWAL
DILIKLI
ZABULON
LOKANTA
JANDARA
CIVADRA
r
I
r
I
2
3
•
4
RATED "GOODNESS" OF
P I G . 3.
5
MEANING
Average r a t e d a f f e c t i v e oonnotation of nonsense words
exposed w i t h low and high' f r e q u e n c i e s .
4.0
UJ
Q
3
t
3.5
5
O
v.
§
3.0
O
>
2
2.5
2
5
FREQUENCY
o
i' ]a. b
1
10
Avora/'jo u t b i t u d o townr<l iihofcoftvnphs rtfl u
funciUlon of frtiquonay o f oxponuro.
25
3
HIGH F R E Q U E N C Y
0
RATED "GOODNESS" OF MEANING
P I G . 4.
Average r a t e d a f f e c t i v e connotation of Chinese
c h a r a c t e r s exposed w i t h low and hip,h f r e q u e n c i e s .
LU
^ ^ L o w Frequency
High Frequency
\
GO
\
L
©"ft
PIG« 6.
Average a t t i t u d e toward photographs of men exposed
w i t h low and h i g h f r e q u e n c i e s .
1
35§