The Mere-Exposure Effect (Pros & Cons)
The Good & Bad of our Natural Preference for the Familiar
Let’s start right here: We prefer what is familiar, even if it is only a slightly familiar. This ineluctable trait — this inerasable quality — has broad implications, especially in regard to the media.
Background:
Though introduced in 1876 by German experimental psychologist Gustav Fechner [i] (1801–1887) and expanded in 1910 by English psychologist Edward B. Titchener (1867–1927) — who described the “glow of warmth” that came with the familiar [ii] — it was Polish-American social psychologist Robert Zajonc (1923–2008) who is most associated with the mere-exposure effect — the phenomenon in which we prefer what is most familiar.
Zajonc was interested in better understanding the connection between emotions and cognitions, and deciphering how each influenced behavior (and which of the two had a greater influence). In 1968, he conducted a series of experiments where participants viewed random images flashing too quickly to properly decipher. When later asked to select which images they preferred, the participants consistently chose the ones that had been flashed the most frequently. This suggested that increased familiarity yielded increased favorability, even when the familiarity was registered unconsciously. [iii]
Similar experiments have yielded similar results, [iv] even when applied to taste. [v] The most notable validation came in 1974 from social psychologist D. W. Rajecki (1939–2016) who recreated the effect using sounds and fertile chicken eggs. When the eggs hatched, the new-born chicks preferred the tones that they had been exposed to prenatally. [vi]
Benefits:
From exercise routines to morning commutes to deciding what news outlet to trust, the mere-exposure effect can be useful as it helps us build an affinity for the familiar. Trusting what has been exposed to us as tried-and-proven has obvious survival value. If we’ve been exposed to something before — whether through the canonization of literature deemed noteworthy or a clinical trial considered reputable — it becomes increasingly favorable. This natural trait helps us adhere to what has worked for us in the past.
In contrast, that which is unfamiliar becomes less preferred, a concept that lends itself into what both psychologists and economists call Risk Aversion. [vii] Why take a new route to work — one that might make you late or bring you to the ‘wrong side of town’ — when your typical route works just fine? Why elect a new politician — one that might bring a whole new list of problems — when you’ve acclimated to the foibles of your current representative? The 14th Century Irish proverb, “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” is an articulation of risk aversion. [1]
Detriments:
Search engines, social media, and even dating apps often use complex algorithms of our history to push tailor-made content our way. This relevancy-filter is useful for online shopping, but awful for developing a well-rounded perspective. If we are spending more time only seeing content that’s catered to us — based on what we already like, believe, and like to believe — we run the risk of alienating ourselves from outside opinions and ideas, creating an echo chamber. In this state, it’s easy to fall into Confirmation Bias — where we increasingly favor information that confirms our beliefs while ignoring (or reinterpreting) information that opposes them.
The detriments of the mere-exposure effect is best illustrated by the Illusory Truth Effect [2] — a phenomenon discovered in 1978 where false information seems more credible with repeated exposure. [viii] Add in the fact that social media (and mainstream media) is teeming with misinformation, disinformation, and catastrophizing hyperbole and we begin to understand the polarization that is taking place in American politics today. As the rift grows, people are less likely to ‘reach across the political aisle’ or have conversations with those with whom they disagree. Part of this is political sensitivity, of course, but one must ask what behaviors have we been practicing for communication about certain topics to have become so difficult?
Acceptance, or finding the balance:
Privileging information that we’re repeated exposed to has obvious survival value. More often than not, if something is shown to us over and over again, it works. That being said, the reverse is possible: Something false becomes increasingly true if we are repeatedly exposed to it. Take Old Wives’ Tales, Urban Legends, and Myths, like the ideas that shaving makes your hair grow quicker, [3] we only use 10 percent of our brains, [4] and Napoleon Bonaparte was short [5] — all entirely false. As famed American author, Mark Twain once wrote, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” But he never actually wrote those words, [6] and his name was never Mark Twain. [7]
In his iconic 1987 novel Norwegian Wood, Japanese author Haruki Murukami writes, “If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. That’s the world of hicks and slobs.” [ix] Part of critical thinking is being able to validate the source of the information brought before us. And in this digital age of hyper-saturation, where we are constantly bombarded with conflicting stories, this skill is more important than ever. So, to better optimize this ineluctable trait of the mere-exposure effect, we must take the time to understand the lens through which our media is presented. It does not take long to identify the bias — and credibility — of our information, whether it’s major news outlets like Axios, our geopolitical analyst friend Richard, or Donald Trump’s (now defunct) Twitter Feed. The more you question the lens through which your world is presented, the more you can sift fact from fiction, history from hyperbole. Fortunately, such a skill — when practiced enough — can become a habit. One way to do this is to repeatedly expose ourselves both sides of trending topics. Websites like procon.org/, allsides.com/, and theflipside.io do exactly that. We can make the effort to discuss our perspectives with people who disagree with us, or even engage in discussions with people with diverse worldviews.
Overall, increasing our digital and critical literacy, strategically choosing which information we want to perceive and how to perceive it, and understanding the pitfalls of the mere-exposure effect leaves us only with its beneficence: the privileging of information we’ve decided is useful, helpful, and meaningful.
Samuel Armen is an author, educator and activist. Orphaned after Armenia’s Gyumri-Spitak Earthquake in 1988 and adopted by Armenian-Americans based in New York, he makes it his life goal to give back. Currently, he divides his time between psychology research for his book (Acceptance), teaching ELA in the top public high school in Brooklyn, creative writing guest lectures at The Russian Armenian University in Yerevan, uplifting members of his community through digital advocacy, and publishing poetry. His works have appeared in The Showbear Family Circus (Aug. 2020), Dreamers Creative Writing (Nov. 2020), The Raw Art Review (Winter 2020), Prometheus Dreaming (October 2021), Hey, I’m Alive Magazine (November 2021), Beyond Words Magazine (February 2022), Wingless Dreamer (February 2022), and Allegory Ridge (Spring 2022).
[1] And sounds delightful when you say it quickly.
[2] Also called the validity effect or the reiteration effect.
[3] If you’re in a rush to grow a beard (for whatever reason), boost your testosterone by either working out, having sex, or anticipating sex.
[4] Maybe the people who believe this only use 10 percent of their brains. Oooh! Major diss! In reality, we use close to 100% of our brain throughout a given day. This myth likely came from a misinterpretation of a quote from William James regarding how much of our mental and physical resources we actually make use of.
[5] Napoleon was about 5’5 (165 CM), only an inch shorter than your average Frenchman at the turn of the 19th Century, and an inch taller than the US president at the time, James Madison. Between his supposed nickname ‘the little corporal’ for his fiery micromanaging as a young general, being surrounded by the towering Imperial Guard, and a series of caricatures by British cartoonist James Gillray — the idea of his short stature spread quickly.
[6] Though Jonathan Swift wrote the words, “Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.”
[7] As most might already know, Mark Twain was the pen name for Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Mark Twain was a term used for the Mississippi River, signifying the river’s two -fathom depth.
[i] Fechner, G.T. (1876). Vorschule der aesthetik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkoff & Hartel.
[ii] Titchener, E.B. (1910). Textbook of psychology. New York: Macmillan.
[iii] Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
[iv] Bornstein RF, D’Agostino PR. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992 Oct;63(4):545–52. doi: 10.1037//0022–3514.63.4.545. PMID: 1447685.
[v] Pliner, P. (1982). The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite, 3(3), 283–290.
[vi] Rajecki, D. W. (1974). Effects of prenatal exposure to auditory or visual stimulation on postnatal distress vocalizations in chicks. Behavioral Biology, 11(4), 525–536.
[vii] Kahneman, D., & Tverksy, A. (1984). “Choices, values, and frames”. American Psychologist. 39 (4): 341–350. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.39.4.341
[viii] Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 16(1), 107–112.
[ix] Murakami, Haruki, and Jay Rubin. 2000. Norwegian wood.
