Ulterior Motives

But we choose that familiar thing if we experienced that it is good. If it isn't good, we won't choose it one more time even if it is familiar.

Sometimes we like things less when we get to know them better, thanks to the lure of ambiguity.

I like the post (not on politics.. :-))

Does the mere exposure effect -- MEE -- (at least in the sense put forth by Gustav Fechner) take the "context" of exposure into account? From what I know about MEE (which is not a lot), it states that the more you see something, the more familiar you'll be to the thing and the more you'll prefer the thing (a slightly modified version of this idea is actually widely used in developmental research with infants).

What if everytime you see something, you see it in a "bad" context (meaning, the exposure is a bad experience for you)? Would you, then, "prefer" whatever you were NOT exposed to instead?

I understand that maybe what your cognitive system is telling you is basically the same thing:(something like: 'ok, the last time you saw this thing -- say the shampoo ad -- it was NOT good, so it is safe to choose the other thing, even if you have NOT been exposed to it before'). This being said, is it reasonable to think that the "context/quality" of the exposure, rather than "mere exposure", is actually what is more salient? Is this a reasonable thought at all?

Nice post!! :-)

Just as an update, Bob Zajonc passed away in early December after a battle with cancer.  He had a profound imact on the research in a variety of areas of Psychology, and he will be missed.