Explaining The Familiarity-Liking Relationship Mer

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/226933530
Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere

Exposure, Information Availability, or Social Desirability?
Article in Marketing Letters · February 1998

DOI: 10.1023/A:1007958302123
CITATIONS READS
93 2,192
2 authors:
Aric Rindfleisch J. Jeffrey Inman

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign University of Pittsburgh
85 PUBLICATIONS 12,814 CITATIONS 103 PUBLICATIONS 12,201 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Aric Rindfleisch on 20 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Marketing Letters 9:1 (1998): 5–19
© 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Manufactured in The Netherlands
Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere

Exposure, Information Availability, or Social
Desirability?
ARIC RINDFLEISCH
Assistant Professor, University of Arizona, College of Business and Public Administration, 320 McClelland
Hall, P.O. Box 210108, Tucson, AZ 85721, Email: aric@bpa.arizona.edu
J. JEFFREY INMAN
Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Business, 4255 Grainger Hall, 975
University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706, Email: jinman@bus.wisc.edu
Abstract
A large and diverse body of marketing literature suggests that well-known brands enjoy several advantages
compared to less familiar brands. Specifically, brands with higher levels of familiarity appear to achieve higher
levels of liking or preference among both consumers and retailers. This familiarity-liking relationship has proven
to be one of marketing’s most robust and reproducible empirical generalizations. However, there remains a
considerable amount of uncertainty as to the conditions under which this relationship arises. In this study, we
identify, conceptualize, and empirically assess three alternative hypotheses of the familiarity-liking relationship:
mere exposure, information availability, and social desirability. Our results suggest that social desirability is the
most powerful of these three potential mechanisms underlying the familiarity-liking phenomenon.
Key words: Consumer decision making, brand familiarity, double jeopardy, information availability, mere
exposure, product and brand choice, social desirability
Marketing scholars have recently turned their attention toward documenting and under-
standing the empirical generalizations that underlie their discipline (Bass and Wind,
1995). Empirical generalizations are findings that are reliable, robust, and regularly occur
across a broad range of conditions (Barwise, 1995). One exceedingly robust empirical
regularity concerns the relationship between a brand’s degree of familiarity and its level
of preference or liking among buyers.1 Scholars across a broad spectrum of marketing
domains regularly find that brands with higher levels of familiarity enjoy higher levels of
liking among both consumers and retailers. These domains include a diverse set of studies
ranging from the brand loyalty literature (e.g., Colombo and Morrison, 1989; Raj, 1985),
to studies of distribution intensity (e.g., Reibstein and Farris, 1995), to investigations of
the endowment effect (e.g., Sen and Johnson, 1997; Thaler, 1980).
While there seems to be little doubt regarding the existence of the familiarity-liking
relationship, there remains a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the conditions
under which it obtains. Although many researchers document this phenomenon, relatively
few offer theoretical explanations as to when and how it occurs. In those cases where an
explanation is offered, it is typically focused on the microcosm of the individual effect
Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss3/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v9n1art1 COMPOSED: 11/21/97 9:15 am. PG.POS. 1 SESSION: 20
6 ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND J. JEFFREY INMAN
under investigation rather than on the broader set of empirical work which forms the
generalized familiarity-liking relationship. For example, Ehrenberg and his colleagues
suggest that differential levels of brand awareness produce a “double jeopardy” effect in
which large share brands enjoy higher rates of penetration and loyalty (Barnard and
Ehrenberg, 1990; Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, and Barwise, 1990). However, they do not at-
tempt to generalize this effect to the broader familiarity-liking literature in marketing nor
do they attempt to offer a theoretical explanation of the underlying processes.
Thus, a key question remains: What are the conditions which produce these repeated
observations of the familiarity-liking relationship? In this paper, we report on three ex-
periments designed to address this question. By offering an empirically-grounded theo-
retical investigation of the familiarity-liking phenomenon, this study addresses Bass and
Wind’s (1995) call for “more experimentation as the basis for information leading to
empirical generalizations” (p. G3). Specifically, our objective is to enhance understanding
of this empirical generalization by identifying, conceptualizing, and empirically testing
three potential rival explanations for the familiarity-liking relationship: mere exposure,
information availability, and social desirability. In sum, we offer an important contribution
to both marketing literature and practice by providing a more thorough conceptual un-
derstanding of the potential mechanisms underlying this empirical generalization. After
briefly reviewing the familiarity-liking literature, we detail our conceptual framework and
experimental investigations of each of our three alternative hypotheses. We conclude with
a general discussion of our findings and suggestions for future research.
1. The familiarity-liking relationship
As seen in Table 1, the observation that well-known brands appear to be better liked than
less familiar brands has been documented in the marketing literature since the late 1960s
(e.g., Shuchman, 1968).2 For instance, the relationship between familiarity and liking has
been noted by several brand loyalty researchers, who find that large share brands engender
higher levels of brand loyalty than small share brands (e.g., Colombo and Morrison, 1989;
Raj, 1985).
Over the past 30 years, some of the strongest and most consistent support for the
familiarity-liking relationship has come from double jeopardy researchers (e.g., Barnard
and Ehrenberg, 1990; Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, and Barwise, 1990; Fader and Schmittlein,
1993). These researchers suggest that the familiarity-liking relationship poses a dual
hazard for small share brands, which typically exhibit both lower penetration and lower
loyalty compared to large share brands. Unfortunately, most studies of brand loyalty and
double jeopardy are primarily descriptive in orientation and offer little in terms of theo-
retical rationale. For example, the most common explanation of the double jeopardy effect
suggests that it arises from heterogeneity in brand awareness between large and small
share brands (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, and Barwise, 1990).
In contrast to the descriptive approach employed by double jeopardy and brand loyalty
researchers, the relationship between familiarity-liking has also been explored by a num-
ber of behavioral researchers using experimental techniques. For example, endowment
Kluwer Journal
EXPLAINING THE FAMILIARITY-LIKING RELATIONSHIP 7
Table 1. Familiarity-liking phenomenon in the marketing literature.
Literature Familiarity Indicant Liking Indicant Key Articles
Brand loyalty Market share Brand loyalty Colombo and Morrison (1989);
Hoyer and Brown (1990);
Raj (1985)
Competitive ad Brand familiarity Resistance to Kent and Allen (1994)

interference competitive advertising
Double jeopardy Brand penetration Brand loyalty Ehrenberg et al. (1990);

Fader and Schmittlein (1993);
Shuchman (1968)
Endowment Brand possession Brand valuation Kahneman et al. (1990);

effect Sen and Johnson (1997);
Thaler (1980)
First-mover First-mover status Brand preference Carpenter and

advantage Nakamoto (1989, 1994)
Distribution Market share Distribution intensity Reibstein and Farris (1995)

advantage
Missing information Amount of brand Brand choice Meyer (1981, 1982);

information Meyer and Sathi (1985)
effect scholars such as Sen and Johnson (1997) and Thaler (1980) show that familiarity
resulting from the mere possession of a brand can lead to higher levels of brand valuation.
Explanations for the endowment effect commonly draw on prospect theory and suggest
that possession of a product causes consumers to become loss adverse (Kahneman,
Knetsch, and Thaler, 1990). Likewise, researchers investigating the impact of missing
information on consumer decision making find that in brand choice experiments, con-
sumers favor brands with higher amounts of available information (Meyer, 1981, 1982;
Meyer and Sathi, 1985). Drawing on the multiattribute modeling literature, missing in-
formation scholars explain consumers’ preference for familiar brands as resulting from
the negative impact of perceived information dispersion on consumer utility.
In addition to these primary streams of research, secondary evidence of the familiarity-
liking relationship has also been reported by a number of researchers across a broad range
of interests. For example, Reibstein and Farris (1995) clearly document a positive rela-
tionship between market share and distributional intensity. Kent and Allen (1994) show
that well-known brands attain better recall and are better able to shield themselves from
competitive advertising interference than less familiar brands. Furthermore, Carpenter
and Nakamoto (1989, 1994) suggest that brands which establish a first-mover stronghold
in a product category are able to use their position of familiarity to influence preference
structure formation.
Kluwer Journal
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the familiarity-liking phenomenon is the dearth of
theoretical explanations which characterize many of these studies. As noted earlier, both
double jeopardy and brand loyalty research is heavily concentrated on simply document-
ing this empirical generalization. While endowment effect and missing information schol-
ars draw on economic psychology (i.e., prospect theory and multiattribute models) to
enhance their understanding of this phenomenon, they provide only partial tests of the
range of conditions under which familiarity breeds liking for a product.
Given this need for further investigation of the familiarity-liking relationship, we seek
to enhance understanding of this important empirical generalization by examining the
conditions under which it may arise within a controlled laboratory context. In contrast to
other experimental investigations of the familiarity-liking relationship (e.g., Kent and
Allen, 1994; Thaler, 1980), the subjects in our study engage in actual product consump-
tion. By allowing subjects to experience products firsthand, our experimental approach
should generate a high degree of familiarity (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987) and enhance
ecological validity. Our study also represents the first attempt to provide a competing
hypotheses test of this phenomenon. Based on a review of the consumer behavior litera-
ture, we believe that there are several potential alternative conditions under which the
familiarity-liking relationship occurs. Specifically, this literature suggests at least three
plausible theoretical explanations; (1) the mere exposure hypothesis, (2) the information
availability hypothesis, and (3) the social desirability hypothesis. Each of these three
hypotheses and our experimental tests of their empirical validity are described in the
following sections.
2. Experiment 1: Mere exposure hypothesis
Psychologists have long observed that repeated exposure to a stimuli results in an increase
in positive affect (Bornstein, 1989; Maslow, 1937; Matlin, 1971; Zajonc, 1980; Zajonc
and Markus, 1982). In short, perceptual familiarity breeds liking. As Zajonc and Markus
(1982) observe, “When objects are presented to the individual on repeated occasions, the
mere exposure is capable of making the individual’s attitude toward these objects more
positive” (p. 125). Further evidence of the mere exposure effect comes from studies of
social interaction. Social exchange theorists observe that in a social exchange context, the
more frequent the interaction between people, the stronger their affection or liking for one
another (Homans, 1961; Kollock, 1994). The mere exposure phenomenon has been con-
firmed by a great deal of empirical research over the past two decades, and its effects have
proven to be robust across a variety of contexts and measures (see Bornstein, 1989 for a
review).
In addition to promoting a positive affective response, frequency of exposure also
appears to be positively related to perceived validity or truthfulness. More frequently
encountered information is usually rated as being more trustworthy and reliable. “Several
experiments confirm that frequency of occurrence is at least one component in the judg-
ments people make about the validity of facts” (Hasher and Zacks, 1984, p. 1383). Studies
of social exchange have found that subjects often rank their more frequent exchange
partners as more trustworthy than their less frequent exchange partners (e.g., Kollock
Kluwer Journal
1994). In a marketing context, Hoyer and Brown (1990) note that frequency information
is often used as the basis for making inferences regarding product quality.
As an potential explanation of the familiarity-liking relationship, the mere exposure
hypothesis suggests that the main reason why more familiar brands are better liked is due
to the simple fact that consumers have had more frequent exposure to these brands, and
thus develop affective responses to them. Likewise, due to their frequent exposure, highly
familiar brands may be viewed as more trustworthy and reliable. Brand name recognition
is one of the key mechanisms for reducing consumer uncertainty by providing an indi-
cation of quality and giving the consumer a means of redress if a brand fails to meet
expectations (Hoyer and Brown, 1990). The combined result of increased affective and
trusting responses may produce both higher trial and repeat buying behavior. In sum, the
mere exposure hypothesis suggests that the familiarity-liking relationship is primarily
attributable to affective processes.
2.1. Design and procedure
Since the design and procedures for all three experiments are closely related, we provide
a detailed description of our overall method in this discussion of our first experiment and
include shorter discussions of the method-related distinctions in our second and third
experiments. The objective of all three experiments was to induce brand preference by
manipulating our hypothesized influencers (i.e., mere exposure, information availability,
social desirability) while holding familiarity constant (by exposing subjects to all of the
test brands). This technique helped to ensure that any observed effects would be attrib-
utable to our hypothesized influencers rather than simply due to differences in levels of
brand familiarity.
The participants for the first experiment were 52 students enrolled in an introductory
marketing course. Each student received course credit for participating in the study. Each
experimental session contained between one and four participants, who were seated in the
corners of the room. After entering the lab and signing in, students were told that they
would be participating in two short experiments. The first experiment was described as a
study of language learning ability (which contained our mere exposure manipulations),
while the second was described as a test of their evaluation of three brands of root beer.
We decided to use root beer as an appropriate test category for all three experiments, since
its key salient attributes (i.e., taste, color, and smell) can be readily assessed by trial. A
number of prior product and brand choice studies have effectively used beverages as
testing stimuli (e.g., Allison and Uhl, 1964; Pronko and Herman, 1950; Smith, 1983).
Based on the results of an earlier pretest of root beer familiarity, we selected Barqs, Dads,
and Hires as our three brands of root beer. We ran a counterbalanced design in which each
brand was disguised and rotated an equal number of times as our three test brands. As in
the other two experiments, our objective was to conduct manipulations which would
approximate a market structure composed of a high familiarity brand, a medium famil-
iarity brand, and a low familiarity brand.
The experiment began with the participants being briefly exposed to six sheets of paper
(fifteen seconds per sheet), each of which contained five (nonsense) seven-letter words.
Kluwer Journal
Through this procedure, participants were exposed to the code names for our high famil-
iarity brand (i.e., Fubviza) five times, our medium familiarity brand (i.e., Mivketa) three
times, and our small familiarity brand (i.e., Surzoly) one time. Participants were told that
these words were generated from “a computer language simulation which is based on an
analysis of actual languages.” In reality these nonsense words were created by the authors
using systematic techniques developed by Matlin (1971, p. 296). All three words had very
low levels of familiarity and moderate levels of likability as determined from an earlier
pretest of 47 undergraduate marketing students. A manipulation check revealed that 87%
of the subjects recalled seeing Fubviza, 81% recalled Mivketa, and 50% recalled Surzoly.
After completing the exposure manipulations, participants were given a short filler task,
in which they were told to, “Please list the thoughts that you had or things that went
through your mind while you were studying these words.” After completing this filler task,
participants were sequentially presented with a two ounce sample of each of the three
brands of root beer, which we identified as Fubviza (i.e., large familiarity brand), Mivketa
(i.e., medium familiarity brand), and Surzoly (i.e., small familiarity brand), and were told
that they should taste and smell each sample. Participants were instructed to eat one low
salt saltine cracker prior to drinking each brand of root beer in order to neutralize their
taste buds. In addition, they were given a pad of paper and a pencil in order to take notes
if they wished. After participants finished their final sample, we removed the cups, took
their notes, and gave them a brief questionnaire to complete. This questionnaire contained
four separate measures of brand preference: brand choice, future purchase intent, mon-
etary allocation, and overall evaluation. A description of each item is provided in the
Appendix. On average, the entire experiment lasted 25 minutes.
2.2. Results
According to the mere exposure hypothesis, we would expect to see a familiarity-liking

relationship in which the high exposure brand (i.e., Fubviza) obtains higher preference
(i.e., liking) scores than the medium exposure brand (i.e., Mivketa), and the medium
exposure brand receives higher preference scores than the low exposure brand (i.e., Sur-
zoly). Our results clearly do not support this hypothesis. As shown in Table 2, it is actually
the low familiarity brand which garnered the largest level of brand choice (38%), while
the high familiarity brand had the same level of brand choice (31%) as the medium
familiarity brand. Likewise, although the high familiarity brand had a higher future pur-
chase intent score (2.68) than the medium familiarity brand (2.48), the low familiarity
brand had the highest overall future purchase intent score (2.77). The same type of pattern
occurred for overall evaluation, as the high familiarity brand (2.85) scored higher than the
medium familiarity brand (2.63), but was surpassed by the low familiarity brand (2.90).
However, the high familiarity brand did register a higher level of monetary allocation
($3.67) compared to both the medium familiarity ($3.15) and low familiarity ($3.17)
brands. None of the differences for any of these four brand choice measures are statisti-
cally significant.
Kluwer Journal
Table 2. Experimental results.
Brand choice
Percentage of respondents hypothetically selecting one of the three brands.

Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
High familiarity brand 31% 28% 39%*

Medium familiarity brand 31% 33% 38%
Low familiarity brand 38% 39% 23%
*The distribution pattern of brand choice among these brands is significant at the .10 level.
Future purchase intent
Likelihood of buying each brand during a shopping trip.

High familiarity brand 2.68 3.13 2.94*

Medium familiarity brand 2.48 2.92 2.44
Low familiarity brand 2.77 2.88 2.60
*The future purchase intent for the high familiarity brand is significantly higher than the future purchase intent
for the medium familiarity brand at the .04 level.
Monetary allocation
Amount of money (out of $10) allocated to each of the three brands.

High familiarity brand $3.67 $3.30 $3.92*

Medium familiarity brand $3.15 $3.04 $2.98
Low familiarity brand $3.17 $3.44 $2.78
*The monetary allocation for the high familiarity brand is significantly higher than the monetary allocation for
both the medium (p # .02) and the low familiarity (p # .01) brands.
Overall evaluation
Overall assessment of each of the three brands.

High familiarity brand 2.85 3.06 3.04*

Medium familiarity brand 2.63 3.08 2.69
Low familiarity brand 2.90 3.12 2.84
*The overall evaluation for the high familiarity brand is significantly higher than the overall evaluation for the
medium familiarity brand at the .10 level of significance.
3. Experiment 2: Information availability hypothesis
Consumer researchers regularly find that the amount of information available to consum-
ers appears to affect their decision making and choice behavior (e.g., Kardes and Kalya-
naram, 1992; Smith, 1983). The idea that the sheer availability of information can influ-
ence consumer behavior dates back to Krugman’s classic 1965 article on low involvement
learning, and plays a key role in information integration theory (Smith, 1983; Smith and
Kluwer Journal
Swinyard, 1982). Information integration researchers in both marketing and psychology

have found that the overall evaluation of an object becomes more extreme as the amount
of information known about the object increases.
In addition to being affected by the amount of information available in their environ-
ment, consumers can also be influenced by the accessibility of this information. Informa-
tion processing research suggests that in order to be stored in long-term memory, infor-
mation must be rehearsed; without this rehearsal, memory traces are difficult to access.
Since consumers constantly search through their memory structures in interpreting exter-
nal information, brands for which information is difficult to retrieve may be ignored in
favor of brands for which relevant information is readily accessible. For example, Biehal
and Chakravarti (1983) find that information for previously selected brands was more
accessible in consumer’s memory compared to information for rejected brands. Although
these two concepts are interrelated, information availability can be thought of as a char-
acteristic of the external environment and information accessibility can be considered as
a characteristic of a person’s internal cognitive structure. For example, due to limited
physical distribution, lack of sufficient advertising and promotion, and poor product
positioning, a small brand may simply have less information available for processing than
its more prominent counterparts. Likewise, since smaller brands are encountered less
frequently and are often rejected by most consumers, the information associated with
these brands is likely to be less accessible in consumers’ memory structures compared to
bigger brands.
Thus, the information availability hypothesis suggests that, brands low in familiarity
present consumers with less available and accessible information compared to better
known brands. The difference in the amount of information available for well-known
brands compared to obscure ones leads to a differential learning advantage in favor of
large brands. Furthermore, since bigger brands are more likely to be purchased, their
information is more accessible in consumers’ memory. The subsequent rehearsal and
repeated exposure to brand information will facilitate consumer learning and increase the
information known about familiar brands relative to their lesser known competitors. In
sum, the information availability hypothesis suggests that the familiarity-liking relation-
ship is primarily attributable to cognitive processes.
The participants for this second experiment were 51 introductory marketing students who
followed the same basic procedure detailed in our description of Experiment 1. However,
in this experiment we manipulated attribute information rather than brand names. In
specific, we began the experiment by sequentially presenting participants with three lists
of brand attributes; seven attributes (i.e., calories, carbonation, color, manufacturer, price,
smell, and taste) for our high familiarity brand (which we called Brand L), four attributes
(i.e., color, manufacturer, price, and taste) for our medium familiarity brand (which we
called Brand M), and two attributes (i.e., smell and taste) for our low familiarity brand
(which we called Brand N). These attributes were balanced for favorability based on the
results of an earlier pretest in which we asked 32 undergraduate marketing students to
Kluwer Journal
rank both the importance of seven root beer attributes, as well as the desirability of three
options for each attribute. Participants were told that, they were being presented “some
brief factual information about each brand,” and were given 15 seconds to examine the
information on each list. We conducted a manipulation check by asking participants to list
all the information that they could recall about each brand. On average, participants listed
3.41 attributes for Brand L, 2.88 attributes for Brand N, and 2.39 attributes for Brand L.
After completing the information manipulations, participants were provided with a two
ounce sample of each of the three brands of root beer, which we identified as Brand L,
Brand M, and Brand N, and were asked to complete a questionnaire containing the same
measures of brand preference outlined in Experiment 1. On average, the experiment lasted
20 minutes.
3.2. Results
The information availability hypothesis suggests that we should see a familiarity-liking

relationship in which the brand with the largest amount of available information (i.e.,
Brand L) obtains higher preference (i.e., liking) scores than the brand with a moderate
amount of available information (i.e., Brand M), and the brand with the moderate amount
of information receives higher preference scores than brand with the smallest amount of
information (i.e., Brand N). Our results clearly do not support this hypothesis. As can be
seen in Table 1, once again it is the low familiarity brand which claimed the largest level
of brand choice (39%), while the high familiarity brand had the lowest level of brand
choice (28%). A similar pattern can be seen in our overall evaluation measure, in which
the low familiarity brand had the highest assessment (3.12), while the high familiarity
brand had the lowest (3.06). The low familiarity brand also claimed the largest amount of
monetary allocation ($3.44), followed by the high familiarity brand ($3.30) and the me-
dium familiarity brand ($3.04). A (nonsignificant) familiarity-liking effect did appear for
our future purchase intent measure, in which the high familiarity brand (3.13) had the
highest score, followed by the medium familiarity brand (2.92) and the small familiarity
brand (2.88). None of the differences for any of these four brand choice measures are
statistically significant.
4. Experiment 3: Social desirability hypothesis
Sociologists have long observed that social desirability exerts a strong influence on peo-
ple’s opinions and actions (Asch, 1955; Homans, 1961). Most people feel strong pressure
to act in accordance with social expectations. Violators of accepted social norms and
standards face social sanctioning, humiliation, and various forms of punishment. Social
desirability is the product of our desire to conform to the expectations of significant others
such as spouses, relatives, and friends. In addition to the influence of significant others,
consumers are often swayed by the sheer weight of popular opinion. Sociologists suggest
that we often determine what is correct behavior in any situation by observing the be-
haviors of others. As suggested by Asch (1955) in his classic study of social compliance,
Kluwer Journal
people will even make decisions that run counter to their better judgment in order to
conform with social expectations. Marketers have long been aware of the power of social
expectations, and popularity claims are often used in product advertisements (e.g., four
out of five dentists recommend…). As Bettman, Johnson, and Payne (1991) note, [the
need to justify one’s decisions to others] leads consumers to choose options that provide
easy rationales or justifications” (p. 63). In sum, the social pressure to conform to the
behaviors of others increases in proportion to the perceived popularity of a given activity.
As an explanation for the familiarity-liking relationship, the social desirability hypoth-
esis suggests that this relationship may be a product of a desire to conform to social
expectations. As noted earlier, consumers are more likely to be exposed to well-known
brands due to their larger advertising and promotion budgets, more extensive distribution,
and better product positioning. These bigger and more popular brands may be able to exert
the power of social influence upon consumer behavior. In other words, although consum-
ers may feel that it is acceptable to purchase less popular brands from time-to-time, the
power of social compliance may influence many consumers to prefer more well-known
brands, thus producing an empirical relationship between familiarity and liking. This type
of social desirability effect should be especially pronounced for publicly-consumed prod-
ucts such as automobiles and clothing. In sum, the social desirability hypothesis suggests
that the familiarity-liking relationship is primarily attributable to social processes.
The participants for this final experiment were 52 introductory marketing students. In this
experiment, we manipulated social desirability at the start of each session by telling
participants that:
For your information, we have conducted this experiment many times, with hundreds
of students like yourself over the past year and have found that on average 60% of our
participants prefer Brand L, 30% prefer Brand M, and 10% prefer Brand N. For public
information purposes, we are compiling a list of each participants’ favorite brand and
will post this information in the undergraduate student commons later this semester, so
you can compare your results with others if you desire.
This type of manipulation has been employed in previous consumer choice studies and has
proved very effective in eliciting socially desirable responses (e.g., Simonson, 1989). A
manipulation check revealed that over 90% of our subjects could correctly identify our
stated brand preference percentages at the end of the experiment. As in the first two
experiments, participants were provided with a two ounce sample of each of the three
brands of root beer, which we identified as Brand L (i.e., high familiarity brand), Brand
M (i.e., medium familiarity brand), and Brand N (i.e., low familiarity brand), and were
given a questionnaire containing our four measures of brand preference after finishing
their last sample. On average, the experiment lasted 15 minutes.
Kluwer Journal
4.2. Results
According to the social desirability hypothesis, we should see a familiarity-liking rela-

tionship in which the brand with the highest degree of social desirability (i.e., brand L)
obtains higher preference (i.e., liking) scores than the brand with a moderate degree of
social desirability (i.e., brand M), and the brand with the moderate degree of social
desirability receives higher preference scores than brand with the lowest degree of social
desirability (i.e., brand N). Our results appear to provide support for this hypothesis across
all four measures of brand preference. As shown in Table 2, the high familiarity brand had
the largest level of brand choice (39%), followed by the medium familiarity brand (38%),
and the low familiarity brand (23%). A chi-square test reveals that this distribution pattern
is marginally significant (chi-square 5 5.22, df 5 2, p # .10). A positive association
between familiarity and liking is also evident for our measure of monetary allocation, as
the high familiarity brand garnered a significantly higher level of allocation ($3.92) than
both the medium ($2.98) (t 5 2.52, p # .02), and the low familiarity ($2.78) (t 5 3.12,
p # .01) brands. the high familiarity brand also displayed a significantly higher future
purchase intent score (2.94) than the medium familiarity brand (2.44) (t 5 2.11, p # .04).
finally, the high familiarity brand had an overall evaluation score which was marginally
higher (3.04) than the overall evaluation for the medium familiarity brand (2.69) (t 5
1.61, p # .10).
5. General discussion
Of our three hypotheses, social desirability appears to be the strongest theoretical expla-
nation of the familiarity-liking relationship, as it demonstrated significant effects across
all four measures of brand preference, including brand choice, future purchase intent,
monetary allocation, and overall evaluation. In contrast, neither the mere exposure nor the
information availability hypotheses showed evidence of a familiarity-liking relationship
for any of these four measures.
Support for the role of social desirability as a valid explanation for the familiarity-
liking relationship comes from a variety of sources in both marketing and social psychol-
ogy. First of all, early work by Maslow (1937) suggests that objects with higher potential
for social desirability demonstrate stronger familiarity-liking effects. In a series of ex-
periments, Maslow discovered that the relationship between familiarity and liking is much
stronger for paintings and names than for rubber bands and paper clips. More recently, in
his study of the relationship between brand familiarity and brand loyalty, Raj (1985)
shows that the correlation between familiarity and liking is higher for product categories
which are publicly-consumed (i.e., high social desirability) than privately-consumed prod-
ucts (i.e., low social desirability). Specifically, Raj finds that the penetration-loyalty rela-
tionship is strongest for tobacco and personal care products and weakest for pet food and
household goods. We encourage future researchers to assess the generalizability
Kluwer Journal
of the social desirability hypothesis. For example, IRI panel data could be used to assess
the degree to which product categories high in social desirability have a stronger corre-
lation between penetration and loyalty compared to categories low in social desirability.
Because previous studies have verified both the mere exposure and information avail-
ability effects, our null results appear to be somewhat contradictory to these bodies of
research. However, it should be noted that our approach differs significantly from these
past studies. For example, our study represents the first attempt to assess the impact of
mere exposure of a stimuli (i.e., brand name) on the preference for a product. The extant
mere exposure literature has focused exclusively on the relationship between frequency of
exposure and liking for the stimuli itself. Likewise, information availability studies typi-
cally do not allow subjects an opportunity for product trial. Thus, unlike most studies
which provide subjects with only external information, the participants in our study
obtained brand information from both external (i.e., manipulated information) and inter-
nal (i.e., product trial) sources.
Our results suggest that social desirability may play an important role in other empirical
regularities in addition to the familiarity-liking relationship. Specifically, recent research
in competitive market dynamics posits that new markets typically follow a systematic
pattern of development in which positive feedback effects among buyers can produce
empirical regularities in product demand (Dickson, 1996; Dickson, Farris, and Verbeke,
1997). For example, products such as videocassette recorders and computers create net-
work effects in which the benefit of using a specific product is heavily dependent upon the
number of others who also use that product (Katz and Shapiro, 1985). These demand-side
positive feedback effects lead to trends in buyer behavior which favor popular products
such as VHS-formatted videocassette recorders and IBM-compatible computers. Cur-
rently, the emerging competitive market dynamics literature does not offer a comprehen-
sive explanation of how such feedback effects arise. We suggest that these types of
path-dependent processes in buyer behavior may be at least partially attributable to the
influence of social desirability.
We acknowledge the possibility that the effects of all three hypotheses may be partially
attenuated due to our experimental approach, which employed manipulations which may
have been somewhat transparent. Thus, an important avenue for future research would be
to replicate our hypotheses tests using less obtrusive manipulations. For example, the use
of a confederate who expresses a preference for a given brand may present a less trans-
parent and more valid manipulation of social desirability. In addition, future research is
needed in order to better understand the process by which social desirability produces a
preference bias for highly familiar brands. For example, research on the role of interper-
sonal influence such as opinion leaders and reference groups may be useful in under-
standing how brands grow through a social diffusion process, which may lead to increased
liking over time (Rogers, 1983). In general, we encourage marketing researchers to ex-
plore other possible consumer behavior and market-related explanations for the
familiarity-liking phenomenon.
In sum, our collection of studies provides a more comprehensive experimental test of
the familiarity-liking relationship than previous work in this area. Through our empirical
assessment of three competing hypotheses employing actual product consumption, our
Kluwer Journal
research suggests that the conditions which give rise to the robust relationship between a
brand’s degree of familiarity and its level of liking appears to be the result of a social
influence process rather than internalized psychological processes of affect or cognition.
While our results are far from conclusive, we believe that our investigation provides a
theoretically-grounded starting point for future investigations. Like all empirical gener-
alizations, the familiarity-liking relationship is in need of further experimentation and
theoretical explanation (Ehrenberg, 1995).
6. Appendix
Brand preference measures
1. Brand choice: “If you were offered a free sample of any one of these three brands, which one brand would
you choose?” Measured by asking subjects to select one of the three brands.
2. Future purchase intent: “Assuming that all three of these brands were offered in the near future in the grocery
store where you usually shop, how likely are you to purchase each of them?” Measured on a five-point scale
ranging from “very unlikely” to “very likely.”
3. Monetary allocation: “Assume you had been given $10 and were told that you had to spend this money on
one or more of these three brands of root beer. How much money would you allocate to each of the three
brands?” Measured on a ten-point constant sum scale.
4. Overall evaluation: “Based on your assessment of these three root beers, please record your overall evalu-
ation of each of these brands.” Measured on a five-point scale ranging from “very poor” to “very good.”
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Hank Boyd, Andrew Ehrenberg, the editor and reviewer for their
helpful comments on earlier versions of this research, Stephanie Dixon for her assistance
in data collection, Tara Petryni for her assistance in data analysis, Nigel Hollis for his
insightful experimental design recommendations, and Millward Brown, Inc. for their
generous funding of this research.
Notes
1. Following Alba and Hutchinson (1987), we define familiarity as a consumer’s degree of accumulation of
product-related experiences. We regard liking as an indicant of a consumer’s brand preference which may
be exhibited in either attitudes (e.g., positive brand image) or behavior (e.g., brand choice decision).
2. Evidence of the familiarity-liking relationship has also received notice outside of marketing, dating back to
the psychology literature of the 1930s, when Abraham Maslow (1937) suggested that, “familiarity, may
result in greater liking for the familiar thing or activity” (p. 162). The familiarity-liking relationship has also
received attention in the form of sociological studies of the Matthew Effect (Merton, 1968), which suggests
that the scientific contributions of eminent scientists is likely to gain more attention than equally noteworthy
contributions of lesser known scientists.
Kluwer Journal
References
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. (1987). “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer
Research 13 (March), 411–454.
Allison, Ralph I. and Kenneth P. Uhl. (1964). “Influence of Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception,”
Journal of Marketing Research 1 (August), 36–39.
Asch, Solomon E. (1955). “Opinions and Social Pressure,” Scientific American 193 (5), 31–35.
Barnard, Neil R. and Andrew S.C. Ehrenberg. (1990). “Robust Measures of Consumer Brand Beliefs,” Journal
of Marketing Research 27 (November), 477–484.
Barwise, Patrick. (1995). “Good Empirical Generalizations,” Marketing Science 14 (3), G29–G35.
Bass, Frank M. and Jerry Wind. (1995). “Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations in
Marketing,” Marketing Science 14 (3), G1–G5.
Bettman, James R., Eric J. Johnson, and John W. Payne. (1991). “Consumer Decision Making,” In Thomas S.
Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Biehal, Gabriel J. and Dipankar Chakravarti. (1983). “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Consumer
Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research 10 (June), 1–14.
Bornstein, Robert F. (1989). “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968–1987,”
Psychological Bulletin 106 (2), 265–289.
Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto. (1994). “Reflections on ‘Consumer Preference Formation and
Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (November), 570–573.
Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto. (1989). “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advan-
tage,” Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August), 285–298.
Colombo, Richard A. and Donald G. Morrison. (1989). “A Brand Switching Model with Implications for
Marketing Strategies,” Marketing Science 8 (Winter), 89–99.
Dickson, Peter R., Paul Farris, and Willem Verbeke. (1997). “Feedback Theory and Management Foresight,”
working paper. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Dickson, Peter R. (1996). “The Static and Dynamic Mechanics of Competition: A Comment on Hunt and
Morgan’s Comparative Advantage Theory,” Journal of Marketing 60 (October), 102–106.
Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1995). “Empirical Generalisations, Theory, and Method,” Marketing Science 14(3),
G20–G28.
Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C., Gerald J. Goodhardt, and T. Patrick Barwise. (1990). “Double Jeopardy Revisited,”
Journal of Marketing 54 (July), 82–91.
Fader, Peter S. and David C. Schmittlein. (1993). “Excessive Behavioral Loyalty Experienced By High-Share
Brands: Deviations from the Dirichlet Model for Repeat Purchasing,” Journal of Marketing Research 30
(November), 478–493.
Hasher, Lynn and Rose T. Zacks. (1984). “Automatic Processing of Fundamental Information: The Case of
Frequency of Occurrence,” American Psychologist 39 (12), 1372–1388.
Homans, George C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Hoyer, Wayne D. and Steven P. Brown. (1990). “Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common Repeat-
Purchase Product,” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September), 141–148.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler. (1990). “Experimental Tests of the Endowment
Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy 98 (6), 1325–1348.
Kardes, Frank R. and Gurumurthy Kalyanaram. (1992). “Order-of-Entry Effects on Consumer Memory and
Judgment: An Information Integration Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research 29 (August), 343–357.
Katz, Michael L. and Carl Shapiro. (1985). “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility,” American
Economic Review 75 (3), 424–440.
Kent, Robert J. and Chris T. Allen. (1994). “Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Adver-
tising: The Role of Brand Familiarity,” Journal of Marketing 58 (July), 97–105.
Kollock, Peter. (1994). “The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Com-
mitment, and Trust,” American Journal of Sociology 100 (September), 313–345.
Kluwer Journal
Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,” Public
Opinion Quarterly 29 (3), 349–356.
Maslow, A.H. (1937). “The Influence on Familiarization on Preference,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 21
(August), 162–180.
Matlin, Margaret W. (1971). “Response, Competition, Recognition, and Affect,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 19 (3), 295–300.
Merton, Robert K. (1968). “The Matthew Effect in Science,” Science 159 (January 5), 56–63.
Meyer, Robert J. (1982). “A Descriptive Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior,” Marketing Science
1 (Winter), 93–121.
Meyer, Robert J. (1981). “A Model of Multiattribute Judgments Under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational
Constraint,” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (November), 428–441.
Meyer, Robert J. and Arvind Sathi. (1985). “A Multiattribute Model of Consumer Choice During Product
Learning,” Marketing Science 4 (Winter), 41–61.
Pronko, N.H. and D.T. Herman. (1950). “Identification of Cola Beverages, IV: Postscript,” Journal of Applied
Psychology 34, 68–69.
Raj, S. P. (1985). “Striking a Balance between Brand ‘Popularity’ and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing 49
(Winter), 53–59.
Reibstein, David J. and Paul W. Farris. (1995). “Market Share and Distribution: A Generalization, A Speculation,
and Some Implications,” Marketing Science 14 (3), G190–G202.
Rogers, Everett. (1983). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Sen, Sankar and Eric J. Johnson. (1997). “Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice,”
Journal of Consumer Research 24 (June), 105–117.
Shuchman, Abe. (1968). “Are There Laws of Consumer Behavior?” Journal of Advertising Research 8 (1),
19–27.
Simonson, Itamar. (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal
of Consumer Research 16 (September), 158–174.
Smith, Robert E. (1983). “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Con-
sumer Response to Product Information,” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (May), 204–219.
Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard. (1982). “Information Response Models: An Integrated Approach,”
Journal of Marketing 46 (Winter), 81–93.
Thaler, Richard. (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization 1 (March), 39–60.
Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences,” American Psychologist 35,
151–175.
Zajonc, Robert B. and Helen Markus. (1982). “Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preference,” Journal of
Consumer Research 9 (September), 123–131.
Kluwer Journal
View publication stats

Explaining The Familiarity-Liking Relationship Mer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Explaining The Familiarity-Liking Relationship Mer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere

Article in Marketing Letters · February 1998

Aric Rindfleisch J. Jeffrey Inman

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere

1. The familiarity-liking relationship

Table 1. Familiarity-liking phenomenon in the marketing literature.

Literature Familiarity Indicant Liking Indicant Key Articles

Competitive ad Brand familiarity Resistance to Kent and Allen (1994)

Double jeopardy Brand penetration Brand loyalty Ehrenberg et al. (1990);

Endowment Brand possession Brand valuation Kahneman et al. (1990);

First-mover First-mover status Brand preference Carpenter and

Distribution Market share Distribution intensity Reibstein and Farris (1995)

Missing information Amount of brand Brand choice Meyer (1981, 1982);

2. Experiment 1: Mere exposure hypothesis

2.1. Design and procedure

According to the mere exposure hypothesis, we would expect to see a familiarity-liking

Table 2. Experimental results.

Percentage of respondents hypothetically selecting one of the three brands.

High familiarity brand 31% 28% 39%*

Future purchase intent

Likelihood of buying each brand during a shopping trip.

High familiarity brand 2.68 3.13 2.94*

Amount of money (out of $10) allocated to each of the three brands.

High familiarity brand $3.67 $3.30 $3.92*

Overall assessment of each of the three brands.

High familiarity brand 2.85 3.06 3.04*

3. Experiment 2: Information availability hypothesis

Swinyard, 1982). Information integration researchers in both marketing and psychology

3.1. Design and procedure

The information availability hypothesis suggests that we should see a familiarity-liking

4. Experiment 3: Social desirability hypothesis

4.1. Design and procedure

According to the social desirability hypothesis, we should see a familiarity-liking rela-

Brand preference measures

You might also like