Psychological research has shown that forces beyond the reach of the conscious mind shape how we perceive ourselves and others, how we react to events, and, generally, how we perceive the world. One such phenomenon is The Mere Exposure Effect1 (or Familiarity Principle). This phenomenon attempts to explain how human beings develop preferences for things to which we are repeatedly exposed, even without our active engagement or awareness of the process. In other words, our decision-making faculties run deeper than our conscious minds can perceive. The Mere Exposure Effect impacts a variety of contexts, including consumer behaviour, personal relationships, and professional environments. Understanding how familiarity influences preferences can help us overcome our biases and make more informed decisions in our daily lives.
In the following article, I explore the foundation of the mere exposure effect, present two real-life examples of how it works in practice, and discuss how marketing and advertising strategies leverage this principle to influence consumer choices. Additionally, by becoming aware of how this psychological phenomenon operates, you may develop an increased conscious awareness of how your own decisions may be shaped by mere familiarity.
Understanding the Mere Exposure Effect
The mere exposure effect was first identified by psychologist Robert Zajonc in 1968, who found that individuals tend to develop a preference for things simply because they are familiar with them (Zajonc, 1968). Zajonc's research demonstrated that repeated exposure to a stimulus increases the likelihood of someone developing positive feelings toward it, even if their initial response to the stimulus was neutral or indifferent.
The underlying mechanism of this effect is rooted in human psychology, where the brain associates familiarity with safety and positive outcomes. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: unfamiliar stimuli may have posed a potential threat, while familiar stimuli often indicate safety and security (Lee, 2001). As a result, people are drawn to what they know. The mere exposure effect explains why individuals often choose brands, people, or activities they are familiar with, even when other options might be more objectively beneficial. It explains herd mentality and the old adage, “there's safety in numbers”. The truth may, in fact, be to the contrary.
How Familiarity Influences Preferences
At the core of the mere exposure effect is the psychological process of perceptual fluency, which refers to the subjective experience of the ease with which we process an incoming stimulus. As people encounter the same stimulus repeatedly, their brains become more efficient at recognising it. This increased ease of recognition leads to more positive feelings toward the stimulus (Winkielman et al., 2003). Simply put, the more people see something, the more likely they are to like and adopt it.
Repeated exposure reduces uncertainty. When people encounter new or unfamiliar stimuli, they may feel uncertain or uneasy about how to react. With more exposure, this uncertainty fades, leading to a more favourable response to the stimulus. This preference for the familiar over the novel is often unconscious, which makes the mere exposure effect a subtle but powerful influence on decision-making (Zhu et al., 2021). Think advertising, electioneering, the friends you make, or new ideas you're exposed to. Here are some examples.
Real-Life Examples of the Mere-Exposure Effect
Brand Recognition and Consumer Choices
Perhaps one of the most prominent applications of the mere exposure effect can be seen in marketing and advertising. When consumers are repeatedly exposed to a brand through advertising, logos, or even product placement, they tend to develop a preference for that brand over others, even if the other products are of equal or superior quality. This principle is why companies invest significant amounts in consistent branding across various media platforms. The more people see a brand, the more likely they are to prefer it, even if they do not consciously recognize the repetition.
For instance, participants watched advertisements for competing products in a study examining consumer loyalty. Over time, they expressed a clear preference for the product they had seen more often, regardless of its quality relative to the alternatives (Muthukrishnan & Kardes, 2001). This demonstrates the mere-exposure effect in practice: people prefer familiar brands simply because people see them more often.
Social Interaction and Relationship Building
The mere exposure effect also influences interpersonal relationships. In settings like workplaces or schools, people tend to form stronger connections with those they encounter more frequently. Even if the interactions are initially neutral or insignificant, the familiarity generated by repeated exposure can lead to feelings of liking and increased rapport.
Consider a scenario where individuals regularly pass by one another in an office hallway or attend the same meetings. Even without direct conversation, repeated exposure can increase the perception of friendliness and likability. Research in this area has shown that individuals are likelier to rate those they frequently see as likeable, even if they have had minimal personal interactions (Moreland & Beach, 1992). This effect highlights how mere exposure can influence social dynamics and relationships, even without meaningful engagement.
Marketing and Advertising: Leveraging the Mere-Exposure Effect
Marketers and advertisers know the power of familiarity and frequently use the mere-exposure effect to influence consumer behaviour. The principle is simple: the more often consumers see a product, logo, or brand, the more likely they are to choose it. Familiarity builds trust, and trust often leads to preference. This is why companies invest heavily in advertising campaigns that ensure their products are regularly and repeatedly exposed to their target audiences.
Coca-Cola’s Global Dominance
One of the most prominent examples of the mere-exposure effect in marketing is Coca-Cola’s global advertising strategy. Coca-Cola is not just a product—it is a brand that has permeated nearly every aspect of daily life in many parts of the world. Through constant, repetitive advertising campaigns across television, radio, billboards, and even product placement in movies and TV shows, Coca-Cola has achieved a level of brand recognition few others can match. Even in blind taste tests where participants taste Coca-Cola and Pepsi without branding, many people who claim to prefer Coca-Cola cannot tell the difference. However, when they see the brand, they often choose Coca-Cola, a clear example of how familiarity influences preferences (Schindler, 1992).
Coca-Cola’s strategy demonstrates the power of the mere exposure effect. The company taps into consumers' subconscious preferences by ensuring that its logo, colours, and messaging are omnipresent. Even consumers indifferent to soda might opt for Coca-Cola simply because of the familiarity built through years of exposure.
The Mere-Exposure Effect in Social Media and Online Advertising
In today’s digital age, the mere-exposure effect is even more pervasive due to the nature of online platforms. Developers create algorithms on social media sites, e-commerce platforms, and streaming services designed to prioritise content users have previously engaged with. This means that the more we see or interact with certain content or products, the more likely we'll encounter similar stimuli again.
For instance, users' engagement with specific posts or videos on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or YouTube leads the platform’s algorithms to show them related content. This repeated exposure creates an almost unbreakable feedback loop where users see the same types of content more frequently, increasing their familiarity and preference for particular brands or creators (Boerman et al., 2017). This can reinforce consumer “loyalty”, which is especially important for advertising. Ads for products people have previously encountered or have searched for will be more effective.
Final Thoughts
While the mere exposure effect can often lead to beneficial outcomes, such as building trust in relationships or fostering positive habits, it can also result in automatic, unconscious choices that are not necessarily optimal for us. For instance, my mother-in-law may not have paid twice what she needed on home insurance for over twenty years had she understood this principle. Insurers love this sort of consumer inertia. Get the customer to auto-renew, and the commission is in the bag.
Our brains are wired for ease, you see. We want to get things done quickly and get on to the next task, which is important from modern life's perspective. But what are we missing in this fast execution of things? Deliberation suffers. Dissenting voices are discouraged, and cognitive bias flourishes. We also want certainty, and familiarity seems to enhance this. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman researched and wrote extensively on this topic. In his book Thinking Fast & Slow, he outlines how the two systems of the human mind can work to our advantage, but often, humans rely only upon one–the fast and biased System 1. System 2, on the other hand, is slow and methodical. It needs time to deliberate, try things out and find the best solution. It's energy-hungry, so much of us run away from all that extra effort. Just make it easy for me, please!
Marketing and advertising departments love this. From corporate global dominance to personalised ads on digital platforms, the mere exposure effect subtly influences our daily decisions. Perhaps by becoming more aware of it, we can take steps to ensure our decisions work in our favour.
References
Boerman, S. C., Kruikemeier, S., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2017). Online behavioral advertising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 363-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1339368
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lee, A. Y. (2001). The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1255-1266. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710002
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90055-O
Muthukrishnan, A. V., & Kardes, F. R. (2001). Persistent preferences for product attributes: The effects of exposure. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 486-492. https://doi.org/10.1086/323737
Schindler, R. M. (1992). The real lesson of New Coke: The value of brand loyalty in brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9(2), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769210035267
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. The Psychology of Evaluation, 189-217.
Leave a Reply