Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs

By Dena S Cox, Anthony D. Cox. 2002

318 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Marketing, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eb7f949103d6bc6525444896907763d2426f4e1b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Marketing

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

On-line product presentation: Effects on mood, perceived risk, and purchase intention (2005, methodology): “Cox and Cox (2002) were used to rate the pants (e.”
The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective (2014, methodology): “College women (N = 34) rated the fashionability of the three outfits based on six items using a 7-point scale (Cox & Cox, 2002) (Cronbach's alpha = .91).”
Beyond "Pink It and Shrink It" Perceived Product Gender, Aesthetics, and Product Evaluation (2015, methodology): “To measure the visual aesthetic value using 5-point bipolar scales, participants were asked to give five product ratings: bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant, not likeable/likable, unflattering/flattering, and unattractive/attractive (Cox & Cox, 2002; α = 0.944).”
Habit slips: when consumers unintentionally resist new products (2017, background): “…prefer products they have encountered repeatedly in the past based on heightened familiarity, at least when these new products are reasonably complex Cox and Cox 2002; Moreau et al. 2001 Active Choosing an established habit over a new product that conflicts Consumers decide not to adopt a new…”
Isn't It Cute: An Evolutionary Perspective of Baby-Schema Effects in Visual Product Designs (2011, unknown): “As it is already known that consumer responses to general design features such as visual complexity (Cox & Cox, 1988, 2002) are quite susceptible to repeated exposures, stable affective responses would make evolutionarily significant shapes special.”
E‐atmosphere, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses (2010, methodology): “, fashionable, attractive, similar to what I wear) using 5-point unipolar scales developed by Cox and Cox (2002)”
The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments (2010, background): “…of research has focused on stimulus factors that drive aesthetic impressions, such as physical size (Silvera, Josephs, & Giesler, 2002), prototypicality and unity (Kumar & Garg, 2010; Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998), and the interaction of design complexity and exposure frequency (Cox & Cox, 2002).”
e-WOM Scale: Word-of-Mouth Measurement Scale for e-Services Context* (2010, methodology): “Cox and Cox (2002) tested the unidimensionality of their measurement scale using principal component analysis.”