Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere Exposure, Information Availability, or Social Desirability?

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. (1987). “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March), 411–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, Frank M. and Jerry Wind. (1995). “Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” Marketing Science 14(3), G1–G5.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehal, Gabriel J. and Dipankar Chakravarti. (1983). “Information Accessibility as a Moderator of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research 10 (June), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, Robert F. (1989). “Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968–1987,” Psychological Bulletin 106(2), 265–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto. (1994). “Reflections on Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (November), 570–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto. (1989). “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August), 285–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, Richard A. and Donald G. Morrison. (1989). “A Brand Switching Model with Implications for Marketing Strategies,” Marketing Science 8 (Winter), 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1995). “Empirical Generalisations, Theory, and Method,” Marketing Science 14(3), G20–G28.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, George C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Michael L. and Carl Shapiro. (1985). “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility,” American Economic Review 75(3), 424–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, Robert J. and Chris T. Allen. (1994). “Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: 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, Commitment, and Trust,” American Journal of Sociology 100 (September), 313–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly 29(3), 349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A.H. (1937). “The Influence on Familiarization on Preference,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 21 (August), 162–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matlin, Margaret W. (1971). “Response, Competition, Recognition, and Affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19(3), 295–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Robert J. (1981). “A Model of Multiattribute Judgments Under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational Constraint,” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (November), 428–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Robert J. and Arvind Sathi. (1985). “A Multiattribute Model of Consumer Choice During Product Learning,” Marketing Science 4 (Winter), 41–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pronko, N.H. and D.T. Herman. (1950). “Identification of Cola Beverages, IV: Postscript,” Journal of Applied Psychology 34, 68–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raj, S. P. (1985). “Striking a Balance between Brand ‘Popularity’ and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing 49 (Winter), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Everett. (1983). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, Itamar. (1989). “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (September), 158–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Robert E. (1983). “Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information,” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (May), 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard. (1982). “Information Response Models: An Integrated Approach,” Journal of Marketing 46 (Winter), 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard. (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1 (March), 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences,” American Psychologist 35, 151–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, Robert B. and Helen Markus. (1982). “Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September), 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona, 320 McClelland Hall, P.O. Box 210108, Tucson, AZ, 85721

    Aric Rindfleisch (Assistant Professor)

  2. School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 4255 Grainger Hall, 975 University Avenue, Madison, WI, 53706

    J. Inman (Assistant Professor)

Authors
  1. Aric Rindfleisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Inman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rindfleisch, A., Inman, J. Explaining the Familiarity-Liking Relationship: Mere Exposure, Information Availability, or Social Desirability?. Marketing Letters 9, 5–19 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007958302123

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007958302123

Search

Navigation