Bulletin of The British Psychological Society (1982). 35, 189-194 Printed in Great Britain

Some experimental studies of familiarity and liking*

W. Sluckin, D. J. Hargreaves and A. M. Colman

What is aesthetically pleasing and why? The answers mere exposure will increase preference and when it to this question have immense practical implications will decrease preference applies in much the same way for people such as advertisers, educators and broad­ to human beings and to non-human mammals (Hill, casters, as well as great theoretical importance for 1978). Neophobia, or wariness of the unknown, is researchers in the social sciences. The question can be characteristic of both animals and man. Exposure to approached from a variety of different viewpoints; the new inanimate objects gradually results in their sociologist, for example, might concentrate upon the acceptance; this developing favourability may be role of social class or the mass media in shaping regarded as 'learned safety' (Hill, 1978). Further people's likes and dislikes, and the anthropologist exposure will lead to a decline in favourability; this is might undertake cross-cultural comparisons. In the said to be associated with 'satiation'. The ubiquitous absence of any consistent body of theory on aesthetic inverted-U curve of liking as a function of familiarity preferences in any of these other disciplines. the (Sluckin. Colman & Hargreaves. 1980) well sum­ approach of the experimental psychologist has been marizes observed responses in both animal and human to collect data on human preferences in a systematic subjects. The effects of exposure to social stimuli also manner and to develop a theory which is congruent show certain cross-species similarities. It would be with the empirical findings. Our own attempts at this feasible to focus attention on the comparative psycho­ have developed along new lines, and therefore there is logy of preferences broadly described as . no closely related literature to be surveyed alongside We shall not, however, attempt to do it as this would our own work. However, some observations about the sidetrack us from the main purposes of this paper, historical background of our studies will be useful at which are to bring out the special features of our own the outset. studies of human likes and dislikes, to summarize the The 19th-century experimental aesthetics ran into findings which we have been reporting in various difficulty in its endeavour to establish a body of journals over a number of years, and to outline some consistent data (Boring. 1957); and so its theories, new perspectives in experimental aesthetics. although very interesting. remained speculative. Thus, aesthetics continued to be on the fringe of The question of method (Mace, 1962) until the birth of so-called new experi­ mental aesthetics a decade or so ago. Berlyne (1974) The theme running through most of our research has showed new ways forward along experimental paths; been the relationship between the familiarity of and he also tried to root aesthetics in biology (Ber­ objects and people's liking for them, and we have Iyne, 1971). In the meanwhile Zajonc (1968) drew used standard experimental techniques in order to do attention to the effects of mere exposure on human this. Some of the stimuli we have used, such as letters likes and dislikes. This left out important factors and words, would perhaps not generally be regarded influencing favourability, such as stimulus complex­ as appropriate for the study of aesthetic reactions; ity, orderliness and discriminability. and many other they are primarily 'laboratory' stimuli that are easy to stimulus characteristics. Thus, Zajonc's particular manipulate and work with. Others, such as names attack on the problem of what is pleasing was on a and music, have clear ecological validity as aesthetic narrow front; and probably because of its narrowness objects. and so our experimental procedure should the attack proved fruitful. and it seemed to augur well approximate to real-life conditions. for the future. Our own approach to data gathering In experimental studies of changes in aesthetic and theory building in the field of aesthetics stemmed judgements. a tradition has developed of assessing likewise from the studies of exposure learning of preferences of subjects before and after exposing preferences (Sluckin. 1964); and the approach could them to the chosen stimuli. We have, on the contrary, also be described as being biologically rooted in a tested our subjects' preferences only once ; and we broad sense. have used stimuli with which our subjects would be To be more specific with regard to the last point. it familiar to varying degrees as a result of real-life is interesting to note that the question as to when . A single testing session is, of course. more convenient as an experimental procedure. Above all, *Col1ductcd hv the Aesthdics Research Group. Department real-life experience provides for a wider span of 'mere of Psychologv. University of Leicester. exposure' than do studies in which exposure is

O()07·1hCJ2!H2 0501WJ-05S02.0(H)©19H2 The British Psvchological Society 189 manipulated experimentally; so much so that in our letter-like shapes on the other. The children's prefer­ work stimuli can range from those which are utterly ences were assessed by the pair-comparison method. unfamiliar to those which are very familiar indeed. As It was found that the younger children strongly will be seen later, the inverted-U curve relating liking preferred the Roman-alphabet letters. Since the two to familiarity manifests itself only under conditions of sets of letters had been well matched for straight and wide range of exposure; otherwise, seemingly contra­ curved line components, the only possible reason for dictory results may be obtained, namely that favoura­ the finding could have been that the preferred letters bility either increases or decreases with exposure. We were the ones with which the children were familiar. have argued that, far from being conflicting, such This particular result was consistent with Zajonc's results should be seen as complementary, and will be mere-exposure hypothesis. The older children also found in any situation, provided the subject's famili­ preferred the familiar shapes, but a good deal less so arity with the stimuli in question varies from extremely than the younger ones; this was the case even though low to extremely high (Sluckin, Colman & Hargreaves, the ten-year-olds had, of course, been exposed for a 1980). longer time to the letters than the five-year-olds. The A somewhat uncommon feature of experimental conclusion from that study was that, in the given method adopted in some of our more recent studies circumstances, liking was initially a direct function of has been the between-subjects, rather than the within­ exposure, but that extra exposure could lead to a subjects, design; this design has, in fact, also been reduction in liking. There was either less neophobia used by Harrison (1969) and by Moreland & Zajonc with increasing age or, quite possibly, there existed an (1977). The method in question simply assigns subjects inverted-U relationship between familiarity and randomly either to a group rating stimuli for famili­ favourability for ordinary letters of the alphabet. arity or to a group assessing stimuli on favourability. A later study set out to investigate preferences for Thus, the drawback of the within-subjects design, common words, uncommon words and nonsense whereby the subjects' judgements of any given words among young (6-7 yr) children, older (10-11 stimulus familiarity or stimulus liking can mutually yr) children and young (18-20 yr) adults (Colman, influence one another, is avoided. Walley & Sluckin, 1975). In one of the A design feature which differentiates our work all the stimuli were consonant-vowel-consonant from most other studies in this field is the use of trigrams: words or non-words. In another subjective, rather than objective, measures of famili­ the stimuli were very common two-syllable words and arity. At first sight this might appear to be a dis­ relatively uncommon two-syllable words. In both advantage rather than an advantage. There is no experiments the pair-comparison procedure was again question that preferences, as well as favourability adopted to ascertain the subjects' preferences. In the ratings, are subjective judgements. Familiarity, first experiment all groups preferred words to non­ however, poses a problem; here most studies have sense syllables, that is familiar to strange stimuli. In used objective measures based on duration of ex­ the second experiment both groups of children posure. Yet, subjective measures of familiarity are preferred common to uncommon words, but young more suitable for a number of reasons. They provide adults showed a significant preference for uncommon in practice a large variance in familiarity; they give a over common words. Figure 1 shows how to make more direct indication of familiarity than such sense of these results. Graphs have been drawn to measures as word counts (word counts, when avail­ connect appropriate points within the familiarity­ able, tend to be out of date and/or culturally biased); favourability coordinates. Non-words have low scores they also gauge separately the familiarity of each on each dimension for both children and adults. subject with each stimulus, whereas objective meas­ Uncommon words are taken to be much less familiar ures are based on averages. In any case, it is on record (Harrison, 1977) that sUbjective measures of famili­ arity, such as we have used, are better predictors of favourability than objective measures.

Letten and words Children So much for the main general features of our investi­ gations. The more specific features will be apparent in relation to the series of studies which we shall now review, beginning with those concerning letters, syllables and words. An early investigation (Sluckin, Miller & Franklin, 1973) involved the use as stimuli of capital Roman-alphabet and Cyrillic-alphabet letters. Familiarity The subjects were groups of five-year-old and ten­ year-old children to whom these were simply fairly t'igure 1. Preferences for ... , non-words; ., uncommon familiar or very familiar letters on the one hand, and words; _. common words. (See explanation in text.)

190 3·5 •

1 3·0 • • • • + • • • • • •• • • 2·5 •• • • • • • • _.__ .- -.... - ~_!.IA.. • • a: • : .-.- c 2·0 • •• ·, Familiarity • • • • , • B • I· JoS • • •

1·0 j • 0,5- 0 1·0 2·0 3·0 14·0 Figure 2. Scattergram of mean familiarity and favour ability sample. (B) for those words with familiarity < 2·5 and (C) ratings for 100 words. with regression lines (A) for the whole for those words with familiarity >2·5.

to children than to adults, and such words have been (e.g. Zajonc, 1968) as well as the opposite-direction found to be much less attractive to children than to reports of such investigators as Cantor (e.g. Cantor, adults. Common words are, of course, familiar to 1968). children over the age of six and to adults; and they are At this stage we can no more than make suggestions considered to be on the rising section of the inverted-U about the parameters of the inverted-U curve. Gener­ curve in the case of children, but on the descending ally, the peak of liking tends to occur earlier with section of the curve in the case of adults. objects which are subjectively simple, highly discrim­ A further study was subsequently conducted in a inable and predictable, and later with objects which different way to investigate the likes and dislikes are SUbjectively complex, poorly discriminable and relating to words as a function of the experienced unpredictable. As we have mentioned elsewhere frequency of the occurrence of these words. Words (Colman & Sluckin, 1976), the former category seems which could be regarded as emotionally neutral were to embrace things which have almost instant appeal selected randomly from a dictionary. No assumptions but which soon become boring; in the latter category, were this time made about the familiarity of our liking develops more slowly but turns out to be more subjects with the words. Instead the subjects, young durable. or youngish adults, rated the familiarity of each of the 100 words on a fiVe-point scale, while other, com­ Names and preference feedback parable subjects rated on a five-point scale the likability of each of the words; thus, the between­ Having studied aesthetic responses to words, we subjects design, mentioned earlier, was used in this decided next to investigate the likes and dislikes experiment (Sluckin, Colman & Hargreaves, 1980). concerning, first, Christian names, and then, sur­ The results are set out in Figure 2. A straight line names. Names have the dual advantage of being easy shows the fairly steep average rise of favourability for to study in the laboratory, as well as possessing a words up to the value of 2·5 chosen by inspection on considerable degree of psychological and social signi­ the familiarity scale; thereafter, at higher levels of ficance (see Coiman, Hargreaves and Sluckin, 1981b). familiarity, there is a less steep decline of average We had reason to believe that patterns of responses to favourability. In fact, our results turned out to Christian names and surnames would be distinctly conform to a theoretical inverted-U curve; the outcome different. It may be best, however, to start off by can accommodate, or is consistent with, the 'mere looking at the results of our investigations and only exposure' predictions of Zajonc and his co-workers then turn to theoretical considerations. To anticipate

191 a later section of this paper, we may say now that the Anyway, the results we obtained in England were examination of likes and dislikes of Christian names entirely clear: Smith and Brown - very common will take us into the problem of fashions and cyclical names- were not liked much; nor were such very vogues in the realm of aesthetic appreciation. unfamiliar names as Bamkin, Bodle, Nail or Codling. The different phases of the work on preferences for The best-liked surnames were in the middle range of Christian names (sometimes referred to as first names familiarity, e.g. Shelley, Cassell or Burton. The paper or forenames) in relation to their experienced famili­ by Colman, Sluckin & Hargreaves, cited above, arity have been reported by Sluckin, Hargreaves & provides an appropriate mathematical analysis of the Col man (1979), by Hargreaves, Colman & Sluckin inverted-U relationship between liking and familiarity (1979) and by Colman, Hargreaves & Sluckin (1981a). which we found. In brief, 40 subjects in Australia and 40 comparable Returning now to the comparison between the subjects in England rated their familiarity either with forenames and surnames data, we must note first of 100 randomly selected male Christian names or with all the distinction between two classes of naturally 100 randomly selected female names; 40 further occurring stimuli. First there are those where the subjects in Australia and 40 in England rated their frequency of exposure depends largely on voluntary liking for the same male and female names. Signi­ choice; examples are songs and tunes, clothes and ficant high positive linear relationships between shoes, and the like; forenames are also in this familiarity and favourability were found for male category. Second, there are stimuli where frequency names and female names, whether judged by males or of exposure is virtually beyond voluntary control; such females, both in Australia and in England. For stimuli are geometrical shapes, letters of the alphabet instance, the best-liked male names in England, such and words; surnames are essentially in that category. as David, Peter, Richard and John, were among the Now some stimuli in our second category can most familiar and commonly occurring names; and become so common in a given culture that they are the least-liked names were among the least familiar beyond, and below, the peak of favourability on the ones. inverted-U curve. Some surnames, according to our We do not think that these linear correlations can findings, are in this position. On the other hand, be thought of simply as referring to the ascending stimuli in the first category appear to be prevented sections of inverted-U curves. Our explanation is as from reaching such high degrees of familiarity by follows. In the case of words, favourability is a virtue of the fact that voluntary choice can reduce the function of their familiarity. In the case of Christian frequency of exposure of people to any particular names the causal relationship is partly reversed: the stimulus which begins to decline in popularity. The best-liked names tend to be given more frequently to result is an approximately straight-line relationship new-born infants, and so they are the ones that are between familiarity and favourability, such as we the most familiar. This provides a self-regulating found in the case of Christian names. The explanation mechanism in naming practices; it ensures that no we put forward has been referred to as the preference­ names are so frequently given as to bring about a feedback hypothesis (Colman, Sluckin & Hargreaves, decline in their favourability ratings. In other words, 1981; Colman, Hargreaves & Sluckin, 1981b). This no single name can become so common as to get self-regulating mechanism, we suggest, is responsible markedly disliked; although striking fluctuations in for the fluctuations in popularity, or vogues, of favourability and in familiarity do occur. We shall Christian names, music, clothing styles, and the like. develop this theme further, immediately after re­ Appreciation of music viewing our findings concerning surnames. We were initially aware that the relationship The layman might wonder whether likes and dislikes between liking and familiarity for surnames might of letters, words or even names should come at all well turn out to be very different from that for under the heading of aesthetics. He will not, however, Christian names, because surnames, unlike fore­ question the statement that appreciation of music is names, are not commonly chosen at will by people, or an aesthetic experience par excellence. We have for people, who bear them. Thus - we thought - the carried out some investigations of musical preferences; correlation between familiarity and favourability for these can be thought of as exploratory steps in a surnames could be curvilinear, of the inverted-U type, surprisingly under-researched field. Hargreaves & resembling the relationship we had previously found Colman (1981) developed a system for the content for words, ranging from very uncommon to very analysis of aesthetic reactions to music which draws common. In our study (Col man, Sluckin & Har­ on some of the studies of 'types of apperception' that greaves, 1981) we had a sample of 40 male and 40 were carried out in the early part of this century (e.g. female subjects, who rated either their familiarity Myers, 1922). The reactions of a group of adult with or their liking for 60 surnames selected randomly subjects, ranging from some with no musical training from a local telephone directory. One of us used in the whatsoever to some with very high levels of training same manner a further sample of 80 subjects in and performing experience, to 18 widely varied America; but unfortunately the raw data had been musical extracts, were categorized into six types using put into a holdall which' was stolen in New York! a modified grid technique. Full details of the findings

192 appear in the original report; broadly speaking, the education, broadcasting and programme planning, main distinction to emerge was that between 'objec­ and fashion and advertising in which research findings tive', technical reactions, which were more likely to could be applied. The active and extensive field of come from musically experienced subjects, and 'sub­ music education, for example, has recently been jective', personal reactions, more likely to arise in the characterized by one of its leading British practitioners musically more naive. as badly lacking any rationale or conceptual frame­ Hargreaves, Messerschmidt & Rubert (1980) work (Swanwick, 1979). It is obviously desirable that carried out a study incorporating a greater degree of classroom practice should be based on a sound, experimental control than that mentioned above. The coherent body of theory, and we may be able to go three variables that were systematically investigated some way towards providing it. Although experi­ were musical training of the listener, content of the mental studies of the relationship between familiarity piece (popular or classical) and listener's familiarity and liking may appear limited in scope, our review with the piece. This study differed from most others has shown that their implications can be far reaching. in the area in that the S4 undergraduate subjects We are not suggesting, of course, that familiarity is made evaluative (quality) as well as affective (liking) the only factor that determines people's likes and ratings of each piece. Various clear-cut results dislikes. However, it is probably one of the most emerged; perhaps the most interesting was that important factors, and its theoretical significance is classical pieces received significantly higher ratings enhanced by the absence of any other consistent for quality, but not for liking, than popular pieces. conceptual framework in this field. The results were discussed in terms of the fragmen­ tation between affective and cognitive components of References attitudes towards music, and this distinction has Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New important implications for explaining why people York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. attend certain concerts and buy certain records. Berlyne, D. E. (ed.) (1974). Studies in the New Experimental A esthetics. New York : Halsted Press. Boring, E. G. (1957). A History ofExperimental Psychology. Some projected studies New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. The research on music described in the previous Cantor, G. N. (1968). Children's "like-dislike" ratings of familiarized and unfamiliarized visual stimuli. Journal section falls outside the tradition of the rest of our of Experimental Child Psychology, 6,651-657. work in that it deals with broader-based, cultural Colman, A. M., Hargreaves, D. J. & Sluckin, W. (1981a). questions. We plan to continue with research in this Preferences for Christian names as a function of their vein, as well as to carry out further studies of stimuli experienced familiarity. British Journal of Social such as names in the narrower tradition stemming Psychology, 20, 3-5. initially from the biological approach. The main Colman, A. M., Hargreaves, D. J. & Sluckin, W. (1981b). thrust of our future work, however, will involve a Psychological factors affecting preferences for first synthesis of these two approaches in applying the names. Names (in press). theoretical knowledge and methodology that we have Colman, A. M. & Sluckin, W. (1976). Everyday likes and dislikes; the psychology of human fancy. New Society, developed in our work on the favourability-famili­ 38 (733), 123-125. arity relationship to the study of musical stimulus Colman, A. M., Sluckin, W. & Hargreaves, D. J. (1981). materials. The effect of familiarity on preferences for surnames. Broadly speaking, we plan to undertake develop­ British Journal of Psychology, 72, 363-369. mental studies of this relationship for stimuli such as Colman, A. M., Walley, M. & Sluckin, W. (1975). Prefer· tonal sequences, chord sequences and musical pieces. ences for common words, uncommon words and Since musical events are serially ordered in time, the non-words by children and young adults. BritishJournal problems we have discussed so far take on a new of Psychology, 66,481-486. perspective, and the hypothesized inverted-U function Farnsworth, P. R. (1969). The Social Psychology of Music, 2nd ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press. can be reconceptualized in a variety of ways. This Hargreaves, D. J. & Colman, A. M. (1981). The dimensions research should raise a new set of interesting theoreti­ of aesthetic reactions to music. Psychology of Music, 9, cal and practical issues that should extend the scope 15-20. of our work considerably; introducing the dimension Hargreaves, D. J., Co1man, A. M. & Sluckin, W. (1979). of time, for example, has profound implications for Aesthetic preferences for names in relation to their the study of cyclical vogues and fashions. Cyclical experienced familiarity. H. England. Melbourne Psy­ vogues are very well known in music, and can be chology Reports, No. 59, 1-20, readily observed in experts' ratings of the works of the Hargreaves, D. 1., Messerschmidt, P. & Rubert, C. (1980). great composers (Farnsworth, 1969) as well as in the Musical preference and evaluation. Psychology of Music, 8, 13-18. more rapid wax and wane of fashions in popular Harrison, A. A. (1969). Exposure and popularity. Journal music and musicians. of Personality, 37, 359-377. It is rather surprising that this area of research has Harrison, A. A. (1977). Mere exposure. In 1. Berkowitz not received more attention from psychologists when (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. there are major fields of interest such as music and art New York: Academic Press.

193 ~I~'~'~'~'~I~'~I~'~'~'~ , ~ , FESTSCHRIFT • Hill, W. F. (1978). Effects of mere exposure on preferences in nonhuman mammals. Psychological Bulletin, 85, , ' 1177-1198. Developments in Clinical Mace, C. A. (1962). Psychology and aesthetics. British ! ! Journal of Aesthetics, 2,3-16. ! Psychology: A Tribute to ! Moreland, R. L. & Zajonc, R. B. (1977). Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of , May Davidson , exposure effects? Journal of Personality and Social , ' Psychology, 35, 191-199. , Edited by Neil M. Cheshire , Myers, C. S. (1922). Individual differences in listening to , ' music. British Journal of Psychology, 13, 52-71. , , , A biographical appreciation - Grace , Sluckin, W. (1964). Imprinting and Early Learning. London: Methuen. , Rawlings ! Sluckin, W., Colman, A. M. & Hargreaves, D. J. (1980). , Laterality and ability - Marian Annett , Liking words as a function of the experienced frequency • Towards an explanation of the 'absence' , of their occurrence. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 163-169. _ - John Hull ! Sluckin, W., Hargreaves, D. 1. & Colman, A. M. (1979). , Teachers, parents and children with , Aesthetic preferences for names in relation to their special needs - Peter Mittter , experienced familiarity. I. Australia. Melbourne ! Psychology Reports, No. 55, 1-18. , The function of play - Corinne Hutt , Sluckin, W., Miller, L. B. & Franklin, H. (1973). The , Psychiatric aspects of adoption , influence of stimulus familiarity/novelty on children's Michael Humphrey , expressed preferences. British Journal of Psychology, ! 64, 563-567. , Full, ready and exact - Neit Cheshire , Swanwick, K. (1979). A Basis for Music Education. Slough: , ' NFER. , Pp.96 Publication date January 1982 • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , ' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, , Price £ 7.50 Special price to , Monograph Supplement 2, Part 2, 1-21. , Members £5.00 ', Requests for reprints should be addressed to Professor W. , The British Psychological Society ', Sluckin, Department of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester LEl 7RH. , St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road , , East, Leicester LE1 7DR ! ~I~I~'~I~,~,~,~,~,~,~,J

I~I~I~'~'~I~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~I~'~'~'~I~'~ ! Call for papers ! ! The British Journal of Social Psychology ! ! Special issue, November 1983 on the History of Social Psychology ! ! Guest Editor: R. M. Farr (Professor of Psychology, University of Glasgow) ! ! Contributions shOUld be addressed to Professor R. M. Farr, Department of ! • Psychology, Adam Smith Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RT, , ~ UK. Initial submission may be in French, German or English and accepted ~ ~ contributions will be translated into English. ~ ,• Deadline for submissions: 5 January 1983 , • Those who wish to submit are asked to contact Professor Farr in advance , , giving some indication of the intended contents of the article. Papers not , ! accepted for the special issue will be considered for publication in the journal in , , the normal way. , • The British Journal of Social Psycholog-y, volume 21 (1982), price £25.00 , , (US$54.00). Special price to BPS Members: £5.00 per volume. , , Foreign affiliates of the Society are entitled to purchase journals at a special , , rate of £5.00 per volume. Further details from and subscriptions to: , ! The British Psychological Society ! ! St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UK ! '~I~'~I~'~'~I~'~'~'~'~'~'~I~'~I~I~I~I~I~I~'~~