The Psychology of Familiarity: How Cognitive Biases Shape Our Beliefs and Decisions

Have you ever come across a statement being made over and over again until you no longer wondered if it was true? Or maybe you’ve found that a song which at first you didn’t like started to please you after hearing it several times? It’s possible that you’ve gone for a well-known brand instead of an unknown one without checking the two products side by side, or that you’ve felt more at ease with a person just because they reminded you of someone you already knew. Experiences such as these point to an important aspect of the way humans think, that familiarity can make information seem easier, safer and at times even more believable. 

What is interesting is that the fact that familiarity with something doesn’t mean that it can tell whether it is accurate; it only shows that our brain has come across it before. Nevertheless, the sensation resulting from this prior exposure can affect the way we assess information. Psychological research has associated this process with a number of phenomena, such as the mere exposure effect, processing fluency, the illusory truth effect and confirmation bias (Zajonc, 1968; Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009; Dechêne et al., 2010). If these processes are understood it can explain why people come to have preferences, keep their beliefs, make rapid judgments and at times become more accepting of information simply because they have seen it over and over again. 

The Mere Exposure Effect: Familiarity Can Create Preference 

An early explanation of why we are attracted to things that are familiar is the mere exposure effect. Zajonc (1968) showed that when people are repeatedly exposed to a stimulus their positive attitudes towards it increase, even if the exposure does not provide any new information. To put it simply, the more often we come across something the more comfortable it begins to feel and that comfort can turn into a liking for it. 

A song that you don’t like the first time you hear it can start to seem less annoying and may even become one of your favourite songs after it appears frequently in reels, advertisements, or in a friend’s playlist. The same thing can happen with brands, faces, places, and even with unknown words. A logo which you see every day on the way to work can later seem more trustworthy than one you come across for the first time, even though familiarity by itself says nothing about the quality of the company. 

Further research into this effect indicates that repeated exposure usually leads to an increased degree of recognition and liking, although over-repetition may in the end lead to a decrease in positive reactions (Montoya et al., 2017). It therefore follows that familiarity can affect preference even if it does not offer any objective basis for that preference. 

Processing Fluency: Why Easy Can Feel Better

A further key concept is that of processing fluency. This involves how readily our minds are able to deal with information. Information that is familiar is usually easier to recognise and comprehend since our brains have come across similar information before. The subjective sense of ease that results can in turn affect our judgments (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). 

For instance, suppose you come across two advertisements for the same product. In one case the language is simple and the design is something you’re used to, whereas in the other the language is complicated and the layout is unfamiliar. You might find the first advertisement more persuasive or more attractive, even if the product details are the same. Studies have demonstrated that fluency can affect people’s judgments regarding familiarity, liking, value and even truth (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2008; Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). 

It isn’t always a problem since fluency is helpful because when it comes to familiar information it really does take less mental effort. For example, an experienced driver is able to recognise a road they knows almost without having to think about it. A student who already understands the basics of biology can more easily learn a new biological concept. Trouble arises, however, when the brain takes the fact that “this is easy to process” to mean that “this must be correct”. 

Read More: The Google Effect: How Instant Access to Information Is Reshaping Human Memory

The Illusory Truth Effect: When Repetition Feels Like Evidence 

The most important result of familiarity is the way it affects our judgments of truth. This is what is known as the illusory truth effect, which is the tendency for statements that are repeated to be regarded as more true than statements which are unfamiliar. A meta-analysis of 51 studies provided strong evidence that repetition leads to greater subjective truth judgments (Dechêne et al., 2010). 

If you come across the statement that “Humans use only 10% of their brains”, you might at first not have any strong reaction to it. However, the more times you hear this claim in videos, social media messages and everyday conversations, the more it may start to seem believable just because it’s so familiar. Since the brain processes the statement more easily. This ease of processing can be taken as proof that the statement is correct. 

This applies especially to social media; a statement may appear many times not. Because it is accurate but because it is emotionally appealing and is widely shared or promoted by an algorithm. Repetition thus leads to greater familiarity without necessarily making it more true. It is important to note that the effect is not limited to information which people already believe. Repetition can in fact affect people’s truth judgments even when they originally have only a minor amount of knowledge about the topic (Dechêne et al., 2010). Likewise, research into processing fluency demonstrates that repeated exposure can make statements easier to process, leading as a result to higher truth judgments (Unkelbach, 2007). 

Read More: We Use Only 10% of Our Brain: Myth or Fact?

Confirmation Bias: Familiarity And Existing Beliefs 

Familiarity becomes even more powerful when the information fits with our existing beliefs, since this is closely related to confirmation bias. The tendency to seek, interpret or remember information in a way that supports our current beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). A person who thinks that social media is harmful to young people might have their current belief reinforced if they keep coming across articles talking about anxiety, addiction, or social comparison. On the other hand, information regarding the possible advantages of online communities or educational content would attract less attention. 

The exact same situation occurs in ordinary relationships. For example, if a person thinks that a colleague is rude, the fact that the colleague fails to say hello one morning might at once be seen as confirmation of that belief. Later, when the same colleague helps with a difficult task, this positive action may be noticed less. Because it doesn’t match the image that has already been formed. As Lord et. al., showed in their 1979 study, people who started with opposing beliefs could look at the same evidence and yet interpret it in different ways.

The participants generally gave more favourable consideration to evidence that supported their own position and dealt with evidence that contradicted it in a more critical manner. Familiarity and confirmation bias can thus strengthen each other. We have a tendency to notice information that agrees with our existing beliefs, and the more we are exposed to it, the more familiar it becomes. As a result, the belief then seems even more natural. 

Read More: What Confirmation Bias Teaches Us About Human Psychology

Prior Knowledge: When Familiarity Is Actually Useful 

It is wrong to regard familiarity as automatically irrational. Previous knowledge is necessary if one is to learn and understand things. Someone who already has some knowledge of economics, history or biology is often able to understand new information in those fields more easily since they have an existing framework to connect it to. 

For instance, a medical student does not treat each topic relating to the human heart as entirely new. The knowledge they have acquired before offers a framework upon which new information can be understood. In the same way, a person who has travelled a lot will find it easier to cope with an unfamiliar airport since they can identify familiar patterns, such as departure boards, security areas and boarding gates. Familiarity can therefore lead to more efficient learning. The issue is not familiarity itself but the mistake of taking familiarity as evidence. There is a relationship between knowing something well and knowing something accurately, but the two are not the same. 

Familiarity In Social Judgments And Everyday Decisions 

Familiarity can as well affect our judgments of people and of situations. The recognition heuristic states that when people recognise one option but not another, the fact of recognition alone can serve as the basis for a judgment (Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002). For instance, if someone asks you which of two companies is bigger and you have heard of only one, you might immediately suppose that the company you have heard of is the larger one. 

This shortcut can be valid because well-known organisations are often larger or more prominent. However, recognition can also result from advertising. A company may become familiar just because it spends more money on making itself visible. Hence, familiarity gives us information regarding exposure, not necessarily about quality. 

The same thing can affect the way we perceive risk. When someone sees a number of news reports on plane crashes, these incidents become easier to remember. The availability heuristic indicates that people might then think such events are more likely since examples readily come to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Thus, something that is memorable or encountered repeatedly can seem more common than it really is. 

Read More: When Social Media Becomes Judge and Jury

Why does the brain give a preference to information it is familiar with? 

A human mind is constantly faced with excess information. It would be exhausting mentally to analyse each decision from start to finish. In order to make rapid judgments with only a limited amount of information, people use cognitive shortcuts, one of which is familiarity. If something has already been seen before, the brain need not treat it as entirely new. As a result, recognition is easier, processing speeds up and the feeling of uncertainty may decrease. That is one of the reasons why familiar environments, routines and people generally seem comfortable. 

The issue is that the present information environment can take advantage of this process. Social media can cause people to be repeatedly exposed to the same ideas. Advertising can make certain brands very familiar. Online groups can keep the same views going around and around. We may confuse widespread exposure with accuracy. This point is important: familiarity can be advantageous if the environment is trustworthy. But it becomes less reliable when repetition is not connected to the truth. 

What can we do to avoid familiarity influencing our decisions? 

Hesitating to trust what is familiar? familiarity should be seen as a sign rather than as proof. In cases where a claim seems true just because it sounds familiar, it is worth stopping to ask ourselves what actual evidence we have for it. It might also be useful to make a point of seeking out information that goes against a belief we already hold. If all the sources we encounter support us, the lack of any contrary views doesn’t prove that our belief is absolutely correct. It only means that we have set up an information environment in which opposing points of view rarely get to us. 

It is useful to distinguish between emotional comfort and factual accuracy. A certain tradition may seem natural since we have grown up with it. A stereotype may appear obvious because we have been told it many times. An opinion may seem to be generally accepted since everyone in our surroundings holds the same view. However, what is familiar mainly tells us about our own experience of receiving information, not necessarily about reality itself. 

Read More: The Art of Manipulation: How People Influence Our Decisions

Conclusion

It is reasonable that the brain shows a preference for familiar information since familiarity lowers uncertainty, simplifies the process of processing, and enables us to cope with an overwhelming world without having to analyse each piece of information from scratch. The mere exposure effect can affect our likes, processing fluency can influence the way in which we assess information, and confirmation bias can decide which information attracts our attention (Zajonc, 1968; Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009; Nickerson, 1998). 

However, the same processes can lead to difficulties when familiarity is taken to mean accuracy. A statement that is repeated may seem true even though it isn’t actually true. A person who is familiar to us may appear to be trustworthy even if they aren’t really trustworthy. An idea that is unfamiliar can simply seem wrong just because our minds haven’t come across it sufficiently. It might therefore be useful to ask oneself a straightforward question: “Is it because the statement is backed by evidence that I believe it, or is it because I have heard it many times?” This brief pause establishes a separation between familiarity and belief. And in some cases, that separation is precisely where improved thinking starts. 

References +

• Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 985–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.985 
• Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the groups of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564 
• Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251 
• Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.75 
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 
• Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., Citkowicz, M., & Lauber, E. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 459–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000085 
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0804_3 
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
• Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.219 
• 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