Some people think they are immune to ads. If you are one of them, you might not have heard of the mere exposure effect— a psychological phenomenon by which we tend to like things the more we are exposed to them. Beware, it takes just about 15 iterations for the effect to reach its full potential.
the power of mere exposure
The mere-exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon by which we tend to like things merely because we are exposed to them.
So, simply exposing you to a random thing repeatedly, makes you like it. And the same goes for pop songs, products, and people — with the exception of those we dislike initially, seeing them more often can make us dislike them further.
mere exposure effect unveiled
When we plot the mere-exposure effect on a graph with preferences on one axis and repetitions on the other, we will see that it takes about 15 repeats for the effect to reach its full potential. If the exposure is too excessive, people get annoyed. And if they didn’t like the thing initially, repeating it can make it worse.
There are 2 main explanations for the phenomenon.
two main explanations
The first is certainty. We favor what’s familiar. Our minds naturally learned to be careful around new things that could potentially harm us. Which also means that if we see something repeatedly without bad consequences, we are led to believe it is safe.
The Second is perceptual fluency. We are also hardwired to prefer simple things that take little mental load. Hard cognitive tasks – like figuring out something new – take lots of attention and time, which is why we try to avoid them.
the discoverer of the effect
Known for discovering the effect was psychologist Robert Zajonc, who had noticed that organisms exposed to something new, experience fear. Each subsequent exposure to that new thing causes less fear and more interest. And with more exposure, the observer begins to react fondly to the once novel stimulus.
zajonc’s experiment
Zajonc then tested how subjects responded to specific symbols, such as Chinese ideograms. Subjects were shown various characters a different number of times and were then asked which ones they liked. Those who were shown certain symbols the most also rated them as most favorable. But Zajonc found something even more spectacular.
Using a tachistoscope, and a group of people, he exposed each person to a series of random shapes that…changed so quickly that it was impossible to discern that some were repeated.
When the people were later asked which shapes they found most pleasing, they reliably chose those to which they had been exposed the most often, even though they had no conscious awareness of that.
The results validated one of Zajonc’s hypotheses: changes in preferences induced by repeated exposures depend not on any prior subjective and conscious evaluations of attributes of the stimulus but rather on results from the objective history of exposures alone.
impact on advertising
In 1968, advertisers and marketing executives were able to read Zajonc’s publication. Some were happy to learn that the effect on the brain can be stronger if exposure comes with other pleasant stimuli. The psychologist continued to study the human psyche.
Later he famously noted:
For most decisions, it is extremely difficult to demonstrate that there has actually been any prior cognitive process whatsoever. It isn’t that the decisions people make are irrational; it’s that the process by which decisions are made is utterly unlike the step-by-step rational process that might be used to solve, say, a math problem. Decisions are typically made in the unconscious mind, by means of some unknown process.”
what do you think?
Now tell us: which of these shapes do you like the most? And were you aware that you were exposed to one more than the others?
Also, tell us what you think about ads. If mere exposure to them makes us like things we otherwise wouldn’t, should billboards be banned from the public domain? The artist Banksy said: Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. But is he right?
Sources
- Mere-exposure effect – Wikipedia.org
- Familiarity heuristic – Wikipedia.org
- The Decision Lab. (2022). Mere Exposure Effect – Biases & Heuristics
Dig deeper!
- Today we know that the Mere Exposure Effect is so robust, that it can even be demonstrated on animals as an experiment with fertile chicken eggs has shown. Tones of two different frequencies were played to different groups of chicks while they were still unhatched. Once hatched, each tone was played to both groups of chicks. The chicks consistently chose the tone played to them prenatally.
- Read how recent studies also found that exposure is very linked to context and that the mere exposure effect disappears when we present the same item in a completely different context.
- Read about Robert Zajonc
- Learn more about subliminal stimuli
- Read about the mere-exposure effect and the science behind intuitive marketing.
- Read more on the Mere Exposure Effect
- Watch Sprouts’ video on Confirmation Bias
- Read about research on the Mere Exposure Effect and attention
- Read about the neurobiology of the Mere Exposure Effect
Classroom activity
In the following activity students will learn about the mere exposure effect and how it can affect them.
- Ask the class how they think ads work and why they are successful.
- Gather the answers of the students and then ask them if they think ads work on them. They should answer by clicker or raised hand.
- Show the class Sprouts’ video on the Mere Exposure Effect.
- Explain to the class that ads work by increasing the familiarity with a product. When one sees an ad, people will not rush to the store to buy the product, but when people shop, they are more likely to select a brand they already have seen than one they have not.
- Ask students to give examples of brands that they have seen on ads and that their parents buy at home ; tell them that it can be anything from soap or detergent to pasta or food.
- Ask the students if apart from ads they can give other examples of the Mere Exposure effect (songs, movies, clothes).
Collaborators
- Script: Jonas Koblin
- Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
- Voice: Matt Abbott
- Coloring: Sasalux
- Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
- Production: Selina Bador
- Fact-checking: Ludovico Saint Amour Di Chanaz
- Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
