Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Mere Exposure to John McCain Can Be Dangerous

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Mere Exposure to John McCain Can Be Dangerous

Brent Jessop
June 24, 2008

About a month ago FOX News was caught hiding a smiling John McCain in the animation of one of their shows (see video at left). Why would they go to such an effort, and break the law, to hide an imperceptible John McCain? Below is an excerpt from a standard social cognition book which will explain a lot. [1]

Video Here!

“The more familiar we are with people, faces, colors, geometrical shapes, odors, foods, and many other things, the more we like them (for a review, see Bornstein 1989). Robert Zajonc termed this phenomenon the mere exposure effect to indicate that the mere repeated exposure to an object suffices to increase one’s liking for it (Zajonc 1968). It now appears that mere exposure to an object is especially likely to increase liking for that object when people are unaware of this exposure (Bornstein 1989; Bornstein and D’Agostino 1992).

A now classic study by Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc (1980) established that people will come to prefer previously seen objects even if they have never been aware of seeing them. In the first phase of this study, participants were exposed five times to each of 10 different irregular octagons. These exposures were so brief (1 millisecond) so as to make conscious detection all but impossible. Then, in the second phase, each of the old octagons was paired with a different new one that participants had not previously seen. For each such pair, they were asked to guess which octagon they had seen previously. Their responses revealed that they were unable to recognize the previously seen octagons; their accuracy was no better than what would be expected by chance alone (48 percent). And yet, despite their inability to recognize the objects they had been exposed to, their liking for these objects was influenced by this exposure: For most pairs (60 percent) they liked the old octagons better than the new ones.

Many subsequent studies have replicated this mere exposure effect. Robert Bornstein conducted a meta-analysis of over 200 experiments that examined the effects of mere exposure on liking (Bornstein 1989). In a meta-analysis, the results of many experiments that examine the same phenomenon can be integrated to provide an overall estimate of the strength of this phenomenon, and factors that influence results can be identified. The meta-analysis of the mere-exposure studies revealed that the effect of prior exposure on liking was substantially larger in studies that used subliminal exposure than it was in studies that used conscious exposure. Inspired by this conclusion, Bornstein and D’Agostino conducted a series of experiments designed to test it directly (Bornstein and D’Agostino 1992). And, indeed, they were able to show that repeated exposure to the same stimuli (photographs of women or geometrical shapes) enhanced liking for these stimuli more when the stimuli were presented subliminally (i.e., for only 5 milliseconds) than when they were presented with conscious awareness (i.e. for 500 milliseconds).

[...] It seems likely that the repeated exposure to a stimulus creates a sense of vague familiarity, sometimes termed perceptual fluency. This warm glow of familiarity is then mistaken for liking. When people realize that the stimulus appears familiar because they have just seen it, they do not use this sense of familiarity as a basis for their liking judgments.” – 283

Our beliefs are manipulated on many different levels. This is a good example of a technique which is used to engrain a certain narrow set of beliefs into a large segment of the population. This of course is not limited to “right wing” FOX News but will be just as effectively used by the “left wing” of this false paradigm.

[1] Ziva Kunda, Social Cognition: Making Sense of People (1999). ISBN 0-262-11241-8.

Posted by: ketyokeinnor

Looks like a graphical glitch. There's all this other crap(I crudely outlined in orange)in the frame too.

Plus I'd imagine they use a better picture for subliminal messaging. He looks kinda weird there.

Also Fox 5 a local NYC news station, not “right wing” FOX News as the article wrongly states.

Ron

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEBADMK8

Mere Exposure to John McCain Can Be Dangerous

Brent Jessop
June 24, 2008

About a month ago FOX News was caught hiding a smiling John McCain in the animation of one of their shows (see video at left). Why would they go to such an effort, and break the law, to hide an imperceptible John McCain? Below is an excerpt from a standard social cognition book which will explain a lot. [1]

Talk about jumping to a conclusion. Can you say "reaching"?

Posted by: Calabrio

...ever notice how guys who buying into one absurd, paranoid kook theory seem to buy into all of them?

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

It was just a graphical "glitch" LMAO! Yeah Im a kook too.

Quick Collect:Car Finance:Debt Loans:New York Hotels:Mortgage insurance