2021
DOI: 10.1186/s40359-021-00531-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

When twice is better than once: increased liking of repeated items influences memory in younger and older adults

Abstract: Background Numerous studies have reported that the repeated presentation of a stimulus leads to an increase in positive affect towards the stimulus itself (the so-called mere exposure effect). Here, we evaluate whether changes in liking due to repetition may have a differential impact on subsequent memories in younger and older adults. Method In two experiments, younger and older adults were asked to rate a series of nonwords (Experiment 1) or unfa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous research in this area has shown that, contrary to expectations, people usually struggle when they have to remember the visual details of everyday objects despite their frequent contact with them (see Castel et al, 2015, for a review). This seems inconsistent with the traditional body of research showing both a great capacity for visual detail in long-term memory (e.g., Brady et al, 2008;Mandler & Ritchey, 1977) and improved memory for stimuli to which we are repeatedly exposed (e.g., Ebbinghaus, 1964;Palumbo et al, 2021).…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 66%
“…Previous research in this area has shown that, contrary to expectations, people usually struggle when they have to remember the visual details of everyday objects despite their frequent contact with them (see Castel et al, 2015, for a review). This seems inconsistent with the traditional body of research showing both a great capacity for visual detail in long-term memory (e.g., Brady et al, 2008;Mandler & Ritchey, 1977) and improved memory for stimuli to which we are repeatedly exposed (e.g., Ebbinghaus, 1964;Palumbo et al, 2021).…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 66%
“…Considering the present and previous work together, further research is needed using different stimuli, exposure protocols, and rating procedures to assess whether older adults would exhibit a mere-exposure effect and, if so, how its magnitude compares to that seen in younger adults. For example, some studies include nonface unfamiliar stimuli (nonwords, Palumbo et al, 2021; Japanese ideograms, Wiggs, 1993), vary exposure cover task (identifying specific facial features, Winograd et al, 1999; passive viewing, Wiggs, 1993), or even ask participants to repeatedly rate faces during exposure (Palumbo et al, 2021). A specific combination of these procedures may be important for the mere-exposure effect in older adults.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the four studies previously conducted, two compared age-matched participants with or without an Alzheimer’s diagnosis (Willems et al, 2002; Winograd et al, 1999) and two compared normally aging older adults to young adults (Palumbo et al, 2021; Wiggs, 1993). Those studies had a range of sample sizes, from 10 (Willems et al, 2002) to 27 (Palumbo et al, 2021) participants, versus the nearly 100 in each of the experiments reported here. Our failure to find a mere-exposure effect with older adults, despite having larger samples, thereby represents the highest powered study within the small set of published findings on age and the mere-exposure effect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The respondents were given the same questions for the pretest and the posttest, a form of repeated exposure. According to Palumbo et al, 48 repetition may carry a positive connotation and may affect memory. Thus, it can only be assumed that being exposed twice to the items in the questionnaire swayed the respondents' preferences and eventually influenced the results.…”
Section: Waitlist Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%