MERE EXPOSURE EFFECTS AND BANNER ADVERTISING ON THE WORLD
WIDE WEB: I HAVEN’T SEEN IT BUT I LIKE IT!
Ming Ong Wong and David R. Fortin
University of Canterbury
Abstract
The World Wide Web represents an intensive information environment where only a subset
of the information present will occupy focal attention. However, the remainder of the
environment is not completely ignored. Through incidentally viewed brand names and ads,
positive affect can be formed even in the absence of recognition. A model is developed to
link the theory of mere exposure effect and the phenomena of banner advertising on the
World Wide Web, and to explore the underlying factors that may influence mere exposure
effects induced by banner advertising. Specifically, mere exposure effects of banner
advertising on affect are moderated by ad and/or brand familiarity, intensity of competitive
interference, vividness, and ‘correct’ ad placement. Significance of the model is discussed.
Introduction
Banner advertising represents the predominant type of advertising on the Web, and has
undoubtedly attracted large amount of investment from marketers. However, the question of
whether banner ads are effective as a marketing communication medium, still remains
unclear. In addition, no study has ever been conducted to explore the underlying factors that
would influence consumers’ responses resulting from exposure to a banner ad.
Some research has shown that affect is generated for an object by merely exposing the
subject to that object repeatedly, rather than being based on the cognitive processing of
information. This is termed the mere exposure effect. Given the passive nature of a banner
ad, it is proposed that mere exposure theory is a perfect fit to the phenomenon of banner
advertising. Mere exposure to a banner ad may enhance a surfer’s preference for the ad and
brand despite the surfer’s inability to recognise having previously seen the ad and brand.
Therefore, the primary objective of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework of mere
exposure effects for banner advertising based on the current literature on mere exposure.
Hypotheses are offered linking mere exposure effects to banner advertising.
Mere Exposure Effects
Zajonc (1968, p.1) defines the mere exposure effect as the observation that “mere repeated
exposure of the individual to a stimulus is a sufficient condition for the enhancement of his
attitude toward it. By ‘mere exposure’ is meant a condition which just makes the given
stimulus accessible to the individual’s perception”. It has been shown in psychology that
mere exposure to a stimulus does lead to preference for it. A meta-analysis performed by
Bornstein (1989) has shown that preferences can be formed without awareness of preference
formation, and that the mere exposure effect is a robust phenomenon.
In an advertising context, consumers often focus their attention on a primary task (e.g.
reading an article), thus reducing the resources available to process secondary information
(e.g. advertisement) surrounding the primary information. Studies conducted by Janiszewski
(1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1993) on the formation of attitudes toward unattended stimuli have
shown that positive preferences can be generated independently of conscious processing. A
study conducted by Hawkins and Hoch (1992) that investigates the relationship between
memory, belief and mere exposure effects also shows that subjects rated consumer trivia
statements as more true when they had been exposed to those statements earlier in the
experiment. Another study using an arena-like setting similar to that found in sports
stadiums, shows that numerous product names popping up along the border of the field and
on player uniforms (thus allowing mere exposure) could actually build preference for that
name (Thjomoe and Olson 1997). Shapiro, Macinnis and Heckler (1997) also found that
mere exposure to an ad does affect future buying decisions, even if subjects do not process
the ad attentively, and do not recall the ad. The study proves that mere exposure to an ad can
increase the chances that a product will become part of a consideration set.
Given the similarities and differences between the Internet and traditional media (Hoffman
and Novak 1996), it is expected that mere exposure effects on the Web may differ or similar
in certain ways to traditional media, and thus deserves further investigation. For instance,
given the enormity of advertising clutter (Brown and Rothschild 1993) and the fact that
consumers are often involved in tasks that limit ad processing (MacInnis, Moorman and
Jaworski 1991), it is very likely that a majority of advertisements do not actually receive any
active processing. This ‘traditional’ view also applies to the virtual environment where
surfers focus mainly on their primary activities (e.g. reading an online article or chatting) and
banner ads that “surround” them represent merely a part of the secondary information within
the environment. Therefore, the empirical evidence from psychology research on mere
exposure effects in traditional media, may imply that banner ads receiving limited attention
may also be able to change attitudes.
It is also expected that mere exposure effects in the context of banner advertising may
somewhat differ from traditional media. On the Web, the level of vividness and interacitivty
of banner ads usually varies from low (simple JPG image/ simple link) to high (GIF animated
graphic/ search function). Furthermore, because of the increased flexibility of the Web,
marketers are able to present several banner ads to consumers at the same time (e.g. on the
same Web page), thus increases the level of competitive interference. In addition, on the
Web, consumers are better able to exercise their own will whether to process the information
provided than in the traditional medium. Likewise, the interactive nature of the Internet
allows a consumer to be actively involved in the medium itself, and to be an audience as well
as a message producer (Morris and Organ 1998). These differences suggest that mere
exposure effects may differ in the context of banner advertising than in traditional media.
In summary, the empirical evidence of mere exposure effects in both psychology and in an
advertising context may suggest that mere exposure to an ad will lead to increased liking and
affect subsequent judgement. As noted by Hoffman and Novak (1996), the Web combines
elements from a variety of traditional media, yet it is more than the sum of the parts. That is,
the Web is a combination of modalities of television, print and radio into a single video, text
and sound. Therefore, it is likely that while the theory of mere exposure effects may be
applicable to the context of banner ad, it may also differ from or similar to traditional media.
The next section attempts to look at a conceptual model of mere exposure effects in the
context of banner advertising.
Mere Exposure Effects and Banner Ads: A Conceptual Model
Figure 1 depicts the proposed model of mere exposure effects of banner advertising. As can
be seen, mere exposure effects of banner advertising on affect (attitude toward ad and attitude
toward brand) are moderated by four variables, that is, familiarity, intensity of competitive
interference, ad vividness, and ‘correct’ ad placement. Moreover, it is expected that affect
should have a positive impact on purchase intention. However, the relationship between
affect and purchase intention is beyond the scope of this paper.
Figure 1.
Model of Mere Exposure Effects for Banner Advertising
Familiarity
brand
ad
Intensity of
Competitive
Interference
+
Mere
Exposure
Affect
Abrand
Aad
+
+
Complexity
+
Purchase
Intention
+
‘Correct’
Ad Placement
Familiarity
Mere exposure effects have been shown to have a positive impact on affective responses even
in the absence of subject’s awareness of the ad (e.g. Janiszweski 1990, 1994). The opponentprocess model (Harrison 1977), arousal model (Berlyne 1966 & 1971 quoted in Bornstein
1989), and the two-factor model (Berlyne 1970; Stang 1974) that were developed to explain
subconscious affect formation indicate that, exposure effects (or repetition) do lead to
affective responses, provided that they do not result in recognition (or familiarity) of the
stimulus (Bornstein 1989). Ye and Raaij (1997) also suggest that a high level of familiarity
with stimuli will inhibit the exposure effect. A subject’s awareness of previous exposures to
the stimulus might lead to familiarity that ultimately results in satiation and boredom.
Likewise, Batra and Ray (1986) found that increasing repetition leads to the production of
counter arguments and decreasingly favourable attitudes. It is proposed that this relationship
also applies to banner advertising on the World Wide Web:
H1: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward banner ad (brand
name depicted in the banner ad) will become weaker with increasing ad (brand) familiarity.
Intensity of Competitive Interference
Bornstein’s (1989) meta-analysis found that subjects are more likely to attend to stimuli in a
heterogeneous presentation sequence (i.e. with many other stimuli) than in a homogeneous
sequence (i.e. with similar stimuli). Similarly, a study conducted by Burke and Srull (1988)
on competitive interference and consumer memory for advertising found that repetition has a
positive effect on recall only when there is little or no advertising for a similar product (i.e.
homogeneous). It is likely that competitive interference may help in preventing subjects
reaching the stage of boredom (satiation). That is, while high intensity of competitive
interference has a negative impact on recall of a brand name or an ad, it also inhibits subjects
from interpreting the brand or the ad as familiar. This thus results in the absence of
recognition for the ad, which is just the required condition for mere exposure to actually
enhance affective response to stimuli. As stated previously, if stimulus familiarity exceeds a
certain level, affect will decrease (Ye and Raaij 1997). Therefore, competitive interference
that may be present in an environment actually strengthens the relationship between mere
exposure and affect toward the ad:
H2: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward the banner ad (brand
depicted in the banner ad) will become stronger with increasing intensity of competitive
interference.
Complexity
Effects of exposure on ad attitudes might be moderated by the complexity of the ad (Cox and
Cox 1988). That is, evaluation of complex ads generates more positive attitudes with
exposure, but not for simple ads. A review by Harrison (1977) and Bornstein (1989) also
indicates that reducing stimulus complexity actually lowers the likelihood of an exposure
effect, and that studies that compare attitude change after exposure to simple versus complex
stimuli found more positive affect evidence for complex stimuli. This concept of ad
complexity is similar to the vividness of the advertisement. According to Steuer (1992),
vividness of the advertisement refers to the number of sensory dimensions, cues and senses
presented (colours, graphics, etc), as well as the quality and resolution of the presentation
(bandwidth). Likewise, interactivity level of a banner ad may also affect the level of ad
complexity. On the World Wide Web, both the level of vividness and interactivity of banner
ads usually varies from low to high. Fortin (1997) has found support for the positive
relationship between the level of vividness, level of interactivity of an ad and the level of
arousal observed during exposure to the ad in an Internet setting. The following hypothesis is
developed:
H3: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward the banner ad (brand
name depicted in the banner ad) will become stronger with increasing level of ad complexity.
‘Correct’ Ad Placement
According to hemispheric theory, the left hemisphere seems more able to process written or
verbal ads, whereas the right part of the brain excels at visual ads. Janiszewski (1990b, p. 54)
adopts Friedman and Polson’s matching activation hypothesis and suggests that “the greater
activation of the right (left) hemisphere during the processing of attended pictorial (verbal)
information should enhance the processing of additional material represented within the left
(right) hemisphere, provided that the material in the opposing hemisphere can be processed
by that hemisphere.” Therefore, placing a brand name to the right of attended pictorial
information should send it to the less activated left hemisphere, where it will receive a greater
degree of subconscious processing than if sent to the right hemisphere. Likewise, placing a
brand name to the left of attended verbal information should send it to the less activated right
hemisphere, where it will receive a greater degree of subconscious processing than if sent to
the left hemisphere. In each case, increasing the amount of subconscious processing should
increase affect toward the brand name. Thus, a brand name should receive better affective
responses when placed to the right of pictorial information or to the left of verbal information
(Janiszewski 1993):
H4: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward brand name depicted
in a banner ad will become stronger with ‘correct’ placement of ad (right to pictorial
information or to the left of written or verbal information).
Significance of Model
The Internet is an intensive information environment where consumers hold greater
bargaining power and are able to exercise their own will whether to process the information
provided. At any given moment, only a subset of the information (the primary information)
present within the communication medium will occupy focal attention, but the remainder of
the environment (i.e. the secondary information) is not completely ignored. Thus, the
importance of the paradigm of mere exposure and subconscious processing stands out.
Through incidentally viewed brand names and ads, positive affect can be formed even in the
absence of awareness and recognition. That is, the phenomenon of “I haven’t seen it, but I
like it”. The proposed model attempts to link the theory of mere exposure effects to the
phenomena of banner advertising on the World Wide Web.
The model contributes to knowledge building in the understanding of marketing in the New
Media. It also has managerial value and implications for future research. Specifically, it
provides insight into the applicability of mere exposure theory for a computer-mediated
environment (e.g. the Internet). In addition, it helps to determine whether banner ads can be
used as an effective marketing communication medium. The model also provides managerial
implications related to design and pricing issues of banner ads. For instance, should firms
pay merely for “click-through” or should firms pay for CPM? How do we quantify the effect
of an ad that is not perceived as such? And how should the price of a banner ad vary based
on its placement (top, left or right) and attributes (animated vs. static graphic), etc.
Moreover, the model may reveal how will presentations of multiple banner ads on the same
Web page impact on consumers’ attitudes toward the ads as well as the brand name. In
effect, the model may provide insights of what constitutes an effective banner ad that are of
great value to managerial practice.
Finally, the model represents one of the first attempts in linking mere exposure theory to
banner advertising for the New Media, and to explore the underlying factors that may
influence mere exposure effects of banner advertising. The model may usher future research
into the area of Internet advertising. It may also shed light on the differences as well as
similarities of mere exposure effects across medium, as consumers react differently to
different communication medium. Further research may also incorporate consumer-related
variables (e.g. need for cognition) in the model in order to understand the phenomena of mere
exposure effects in the context of virtual advertising more precisely. As the Web allows
consumer to hold greater bargaining power and to be more actively involved in the medium
itself, it may be useful to examine the phenomenon from the consumers’ perspective.
Perhaps this framework of banner advertising and mere exposure effects will be of use for
future research in this area, as advertising on the Web will most certainly continue to evolve
as consumer’s acceptance and use of the Internet for transactions evolves in the years to
come.
References
Cox, Dena S. and Cox, Anthony D (1988), “What Does Familiarity Breed? Complexity as a
Moderator of Repetition Effects in Advertisement Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(1), 111-116.
Burke, Raymond R. and Srull, Thomas K (1988), “Competitive Interference and Consumer
Memory for Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 55-68
Batra, Rajeev. and Ray, Michael L (1986), “Situational Effects of Advertising Repetition:
The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability and Opportunity to Respond,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 12(4), 432-445.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970), “Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value,” Perception and
Psychophysics, 8(5-A), 279-286.
Bornstein, Robert F (1989), “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-analysis of Research,
1968-1987,” Psychological Bulletin, 106 (2), 265-289.
Brown, Tom J. and Rothschild, Michael L (1993), “Reassessing the Impact of Television
Advertising Clutter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 138-146.
Cook, Don L. and Coupey, Eloise (1998), “Consumer Behavior and Unresolved Regulatory
Issues in Electronic Marketing,” Journal of Business Research, 41, 231-238.
Fortin, David R (1997), “The Impact of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness in the New
Media,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI USA.
Harrison A.A (1977), “Mere Exposure” In Berkowitz (1977), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, vol. 10. Academic Press, New York.
Hawkins, Scott A. and Hoch Stephen J. (1992), “Low-involvement Learning: Memory
without Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2), 212-225.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Novak, Thomas P. (1996), “Marketing in Hypermedia ComputerMediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.
Janiszewski, Chris (1993), “Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (3), 376-392.
---- (1990a), “The Influence of Nonattended Material on the Processing of Advertising
Claims,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (3), 263-278.
---- (1990b), “The Influence of Print Advertisement Organization on Affect Toward a Brand
Name,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 53-65.
---- (1988), “Preconscious Processing Effects: The Independence of Attitude Formation and
Conscious Thought,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 199-209.
MacInnis, Deborah J. Moorman, Christine and Jaworski, Bernard J. (1991), “Enhancing and
Measuring Consumers' Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information
from Ads,” Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32-53.
Shapiro, Stewart., MacInnis, Deborah J. and Heckler, Susan E (1997), “The Effects of
Incidental Ad Exposure on the Formation of Consideration Sets,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(1), 94-104.
Stang, David J. (1974), “Intuition as Artifact in Mere Exposure Studies,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30(5): 647-653
Steur, Jonathan (1992), “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence,”
Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93.
Thjomoe and Olson (1997), “The Mere Exposure Effect on Brand Preference in Low
Involvement Settings,” in AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, Vol. 8, LeClair and Hartline,
eds.
Ye, Gewei. and van-Raaij, W. Fred (1997), “What Inhibits the Mere Exposure Effect:
Recollection or Familiarity?” Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6): 629-648.
Zajonc, Robert B (1968), “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 9 (2, PT. 2): 1-27.