↓ Skip to main content

Novelty vs. Familiarity Principles in Preference Decisions: Task-Context of Past Experience Matters

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
21 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Novelty vs. Familiarity Principles in Preference Decisions: Task-Context of Past Experience Matters
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00043
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hsin-I Liao, Su-Ling Yeh, Shinsuke Shimojo

Abstract

Our preferences are shaped by past experience in many ways, but a systematic understanding of the factors is yet to be achieved. For example, studies of the mere exposure effect show that experience with an item leads to increased liking (familiarity preference), but the exact opposite tendency is found in other studies utilizing dishabituation (novelty preference). Recently, it has been found that image category affects whether familiarity or novelty preference emerges from repeated stimulus exposure (Park et al., 2010). Faces elicited familiarity preference, but natural scenes elicited novelty preference. In their task, preference judgments were made throughout all exposures, raising the question of whether the task-context during exposure was involved. We adapt their paradigm, testing if passive exposure or objective judgment task-contexts lead to different results. Results showed that after passive viewing, familiar faces were preferred, but no preference bias in either direction was found with natural scenes, or with geometric figures (control). After exposure during the objective judgment task, familiar faces were preferred, novel natural scenes were preferred, and no preference bias was found with geometric figures. The overall results replicate the segregation of preference biases across object categories and suggest that the preference for familiar faces and novel natural scenes are modulated by task-context memory at different processing levels or selection involvement. Possible underlying mechanisms of the two types of preferences are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 178 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 18%
Student > Master 27 15%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Professor 14 8%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 87 47%
Neuroscience 13 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 42 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 184. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2021.
All research outputs
#177,053
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#357
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#680
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#3
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.