The Mere Exposure Effect: Why Familiar Wins, Even When It Shouldn’t

Bite-size: The more we see something, the more we tend to like it. This is the Mere Exposure Effect—a well-documented psychological phenomenon where repeated exposure to a stimulus increases our preference for it. First introduced by social psychologist Robert Zajonc in the 1960s, the idea is simple but powerful: familiarity breeds favorability, even without conscious awareness or evaluation.

For marketers, this principle is more than theory. It’s a quiet force behind brand preference, purchase intent, and customer loyalty.

Full-size:
Why It Matters in Marketing

In a world flooded with choices, people don’t stop to carefully weigh every option. They default to what feels familiar—what’s easy to recall, process, or recognize. That’s why repeated exposure works. It makes brands feel safe, trustworthy, even likable.

And yet, many marketers resist repetition. They worry that their message will get stale. That people will get bored. But the truth is: if you’re tired of your campaign, your audience is probably just starting to notice it.

Sticking with a message—visually, verbally, emotionally—is how brands move from awareness to preference. Repetition doesn’t kill creativity. It reinforces it.

Example: GEICO vs. Quibi

Consider GEICO, the insurance giant that’s spent years investing in offbeat, humorous campaigns featuring everything from geckos to cavemen. The ads don’t explain policies or push rational selling points. But they do make GEICO familiar. And that familiarity makes it top-of-mind when it’s finally time to shop for insurance.

Now contrast that with Quibi, the short-form video platform that launched with a $1.75 billion war chest and fizzled in less than a year. Despite the star-studded content and media buzz, the product was too unfamiliar—and the exposure window too short—for people to build any kind of meaningful connection.

Same with new logos, new taglines, new campaigns launched in quick succession. When you change the message too often, you reset the exposure clock before anything has a chance to stick.

So What?

We live in a world where attention is fragmented, fleeting, and increasingly expensive to earn. Consumers are bombarded with content, ads, and choices—scrolling past thousands of messages a day, barely registering most.

In that environment, clarity isn’t enough. Consistency isn’t enough. You need repetition.

The Mere Exposure Effect reminds us that people often choose what they recognize—not what they’ve scrutinized. It’s why reach and frequency still matter. Why sticking with the same message, visual system, or audio cue over time isn’t boring—it’s brand building.

The Invisible Barriers to Effect Group Decision Making

Group decision-making often gets a bad rap for being slow and inefficient. The need for discussion, consensus-building, and coordination can absolutely add time to the process. But the goal shouldn’t be to rush the decision—it should be to remove unnecessary friction and improve efficiency without sacrificing quality.

Managers can streamline group decisions by setting clear criteria, structuring discussions, and using decision-making tools that keep teams focused. These practical fixes work well for surface-level challenges like time delays.

However, some of the most damaging obstacles to group decisions are psychological—and they’re much harder for leaders to detect. Psychological barriers don’t show up in meeting minutes or project plans. They live in culture, unspoken norms, team dynamics, and behavior patterns. That means the fix also has to be cultural, not just procedural.

At the heart of the solution is psychological safety—the shared belief that individuals can express ideas, ask questions, and challenge assumptions without fear of ridicule or punishment. Psychological safety doesn’t just make collaboration more pleasant—it directly combats the invisible psychological traps that derail group decisions.

1. Preventing Groupthink: Encouraging Dissent Without Fear

Groupthink happens when individuals prioritize harmony and consensus over critical evaluation. It’s blind agreement—everyone going along to get along. Without psychological safety, people might hesitate to challenge dominant voices, fearing backlash, being seen as difficult, or looking uninformed. But with psychological safety, team members feel comfortable questioning assumptions and offering alternative viewpoints, knowing disagreement won’t be punished.

How to combat it:

• Normalize dissent: Leaders should actively invite critique (“What could go wrong with this plan?”).

• Assign a devil’s advocate: Appoint someone to challenge group assumptions.

• Reframe mistakes: Shift from blame to curiosity—treating missteps as learning opportunities.

2. Reducing Social Loafing: Creating Visibility and Shared Accountability

Social loafing happens when individuals put in less effort in a group than they would on their own. It’s not just a motivation problem—it’s a group dynamic problem. People either assume others will pick up the slack, or they feel their personal effort won’t be noticed or valued. Without psychological safety, people might avoid clarifying roles, speaking up when workloads are uneven, or addressing loafing directly—fearing conflict or being labeled difficult. With psychological safety, team members can clarify roles, ask for help, and hold each other accountable—without fear of judgment or blame.

How to combat it:

• Clarify roles upfront: Make sure individual contributions are visible and valued.

• Normalize peer accountability: Frame check-ins as team care, not personal criticism.

• Celebrate effort: Acknowledge individual contributions publicly.

• Create safe progress check-ins: Encourage people to be honest if they’re stuck or struggling.

3. Overcoming Shared Information Bias: Making Room for Unique Insights

Shared information bias happens when teams focus on the information everyone already knows—rather than surfacing unique insights from individual members. It’s comfortable to stick with the familiar, but it comes at the cost of fresh thinking and diverse input. Without psychological safety, people might hold back unique perspectives, worrying they’ll be dismissed or seen as off-topic With psychological safety, team members are more likely to share unconventional insights without fear of looking out of place.

How to combat it:

• Structured sharing: Have everyone write down key insights before the discussion starts to ensure unique perspectives make it to the table.

• Ask for the missing: Explicitly ask, “What haven’t we considered yet?”

• Rotate speaking order: Give quieter team members a chance to speak before louder voices dominate.

Psychological safety isn’t a feel-good perk or some DEI requirement—it’s a practical necessity for high-quality group decisions. When teams feel safe to disagree, contribute unique insights, and hold each other accountable, they make faster, smarter, and more innovative decisions.

The Pratfall Effect: When Mistakes Can Make (or Break) a Brand

Bite-size: Mistakes don’t always spell disaster. In fact, psychology tells us that small blunders can actually increase likability—a phenomenon known as the Pratfall Effect. When someone (or a brand) perceived as competent makes a harmless mistake, they become more relatable and endearing. However, when applied incorrectly, it can backfire, making a brand seem careless or inauthentic.

Full-size:
Let’s break down why the Pratfall Effect can be a powerful tool for marketers, where it works, and where it fails—using Coors Light’s Case of the Mondays campaign and KFC’s FCK apology as examples.

Why Brands Should Leverage the Pratfall Effect

1. It Humanizes the Brand
   Consumers connect with brands that feel real. KFC’s FCK campaign in 2018, responding to a supply chain disaster that left them without chicken, is a perfect example. Their self-deprecating apology—rearranging their logo to spell “FCK”—felt authentic and relatable. It made them seem accountable, self-aware, and ultimately more likable.

2. It Enhances Likeability Through Humor
   People enjoy brands that don’t take themselves too seriously. When a brand acknowledges a blunder with humor (instead of ignoring or over-explaining it), it creates a more approachable image. KFC’s playful response worked because the humor felt natural—it wasn’t a gimmick, it was a smart reaction to a real issue.

3. It Boosts Engagement and Talkability
   When executed well, a small, controlled mistake can spark conversation. The FCK campaign became a viral moment, with consumers and media outlets praising KFC’s response. The key? It was an actual problem they had to address, not a fabricated one.

When the Pratfall Effect Backfires

1. If the Mistake Feels Manufactured
   Coors Light’s Case of the Mondays campaign, launched during the 2025 Super Bowl, deliberately misspelled “refreshment” in outdoor ads to spark conversation. Unlike KFC’s FCK campaign, which addressed a real supply issue, Coors’ approach felt forced and gimmicky. Rather than making the brand more likable, it came off as a cheap attempt at engagement. If consumers sense a mistake is staged, they’re less likely to find it charming and more likely to feel manipulated.

2. If the Brand Isn’t Seen as “Competent” Enough
   The Pratfall Effect only works when a brand is already perceived as strong. KFC, despite its missteps, has a solid reputation and a loyal fan base. Coors Light, on the other hand, doesn’t hold the same prestige in the beer world—it's often seen as just another generic light beer. A deliberate typo didn’t humanize the brand; it just reinforced perceptions of carelessness rather than playfulness.

3. If It Comes Off as Disrespectful to Consumers
   There’s a fine line between being self-deprecating and looking down on your audience. KFC’s FCK campaign worked because it empathized with frustrated customers. Coors Light’s misspelled refreshment felt more like a joke on consumers rather than a joke with them. When brands try too hard to be clever, they risk alienating their audience instead of engaging them.

Social vs. Behavioral Psychology: Which is a Better At Predicting of Consumer Behavior?

Bite-size: Social psychology and behavioral psychology both study human behavior, but they take different approaches to explain (or predict) behavioral patterns. The difference in analysis lies in what (or rather where) the main influence is coming from. Both fields recognize the interplay between internal states and external actions, but they differ mainly in their level of analysis.

Full-size:
Social psychology and behavioral psychology focus on different aspects and employ distinct approaches when studying human behavior. Social psychology examines how internal attitudes, beliefs, and emotions drive behavior. It focuses on the cognitive and affective processes that precede—and sometimes fail to align with—our actions. In contrast, behavioral psychology starts with observable behavior and explains it through external influences such as conditioning, reinforcement, and environmental cues, treating actions as primary and often viewing attitudes as secondary or emerging from those behaviors.

Focusing on consumer attitudes is crucial for advertisers because deeply held beliefs and values not only drive immediate purchasing decisions but also foster long-term brand loyalty. For instance, Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign taps into underlying attitudes of empowerment and resilience, encouraging consumers to adopt an identity centered around overcoming challenges rather than merely reacting to a discount or promotion. Similarly, Apple’s advertising emphasizes innovation and creativity, aligning with consumers’ desire to be seen as forward-thinking and unique. These campaigns do more than trigger a momentary response—they shape the way consumers view themselves and the brands they support.

In contrast to a behavior-first approach—which might rely on short-term incentives or promotions (for example, a 20% discount for Nike Club members) to condition immediate responses—the attitude-first strategy focuses on engaging deeper, intrinsic motivations. While a behavior-first approach may successfully prompt a purchase through temporary discounts, it rarely builds an emotional connection or long-term loyalty. By crafting messages that resonate with core attitudes and values, advertisers not only influence behavior but also create enduring relationships that persist beyond the initial transaction, leading to a more sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The Halo Effect: Marketing’s Not-So Magic Trick

Bite-size: Our brains prefer efficiency over effort—rather than analyzing every attribute independently, we rely on existing impressions to guide our judgments. One heuristic you can use is ‘The Halo Effect.’ One domain (context of the ad) will spill over into the other (your brand or product) unconsciously and without objective assessment.

Full-size:
You see a new commercial and while you don't recognize the brand, you like the dancing monkeys. You might not realize it but a positive association is being developed by brand you know nothing about. One domain (context of the ad) spills over into other domains (the new brand) unconsciously and without objective assessment. This is known as The Halo Effect— a mental shortcut where our brains use a single positive trait to fill in the blanks about other unrelated characteristics. 

Using celebrity endorsement is a popular choice—In 2024, more than 68% of Super Bowl commercials featured at least one celebrity (source). But using a celebrity can be risky and almost always is VERY very expensive. (IMO it’s a bit played out) Creating a brand personality is a more creative alternative that can be more effective and give you the marketer more control.

Coca-Cola has spent decades crafting an image associated with happiness, nostalgia, and togetherness through its marketing. But not all brands have the luxury of time or mountains of marketing dollars. A great recent example of the halo effect in action is Oatly, the Swedish oat milk brand that has rapidly gained popularity in the U.S. market by positioning itself as more than just a dairy alternative—it crafted a brand identity around being quirky, sustainable, and health-conscious. Its minimalist packaging, playful tone, and environmental messaging created a strong emotional appeal, making consumers associate the brand with being cool, progressive, and better for the planet.

The incumbent competitor in the space, Silk brand, stood no chance. Even with bigger budgets, celebrity endorsements, and an iconic ad rip-off of epic proportions (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners would like to have a word).  

A lesson in behavioral science, by President Trump: Part 2

Bite-size: Another hallmark of Trump’s communication style is repetition. He repeatedly asserts a claim or idea to build familiarity and reinforce belief. He does this to either, (A) create a sense of consensus and normalize his position, or (B) exploit the tendency for people to believe something is true because they’ve heard it multiple times.

Full-size:
By repeatedly asserting a claim or idea (e.g., “Make America Great Again,” for example), President Trump reinforces this idea through “Repetition for Social Proof”. Repeated use and exposure to his position creates a sense of acceptance and accord, a tactic often seen in marketing to convince consumers of a brand or product’s popularity or reliability.

This also exploits the tendency for people to believe something is true simply because they’ve heard it multiple times. This is called the “Illusory Truth Effect.” By repeatedly stating false or exaggerated claims (even if the claim is debunked), the constant repetition leaves an impression and can subtly, unnoticeably alter perceptions, creating doubt about opposing views.

Brands use this effectively (and ethically) by:

• Repeatedly reinforcing how many people are actively engaged (e.g., fitness apps and their users) to make people feel like they’re missing out on some global movement. Or…

• Brands lean on familiar associations (e.g., beauty brands using influencers) to repeat subtle phrases of “effectiveness” and create a perception of legitimacy.

Over time, customers hear and see these numbers or phrases often enough to perceive the brand as credible and superior, even without hard proof.

A lesson in behavioral science, by President Trump: Part 1

Bite-size: You might be familiar with the “foot-in-the-door” phenomenon—a persuasive strategy used by sneaky salesmen—but have you heard of the “door-in-the-face” technique? Sounds painful doesn’t it? Well, it’ll surely leave a mark. Trump uses it to a capital T. And it’ll make you think differently about his plan to take over Greenland.

Full-size:
You might be familiar with “Foot-in-the-Door” as a popular sales technique—it involves starting with a small request first to gain compliance, followed by a larger request. This technique builds commitment over time, but gradually escalates the request to something much bigger once people have shown initial support. A popular marketing example would be the free trial (e.g., Netflix, Spotify). Once the user becomes accustomed to the service and sees its value, they’re more likely to agree to a larger commitment (such as subscribing to a paid plan).

But what I’ve seen from Trump lately is using the “Door-in-the-Face” technique. This involves making an initial, large request that is likely to be rejected, followed by a smaller, more reasonable request. Trump often starts with extreme proposals (e.g., building a massive border wall, taking over Greenland) which attract attention and controversy. When scaled back or refined, the adjusted proposals seem more reasonable by comparison, increasing the likelihood of acceptance. A brand might use this by upselling with an initial higher-ticket item, followed by a lower-priced product. Luxury retailers and automakers do this SUPER well.

Lost in Translation: The Invisible Barrier of Knowing Too Much

Bite-size: Experts, listen up: not all of us understand what you’re saying. Yes, you can know something so well that you forget what it’s like not to know it. This is the Curse of Knowledge and it occurs when someone, who knows a piece of information, finds it difficult to imagine what it’s like for someone else not to know it. This plagues LinkedIn “thought-leaders” and marketers alike.

Full-size:
The Curse of Knowledge happens because once we acquire knowledge, we lose the ability to "unlearn" it or step into the shoes of someone who doesn’t have that same knowledge. This gap in perspective makes it hard to communicate clearly with people who don’t share the same expertise.

This phenomenon is relevant in fields like marketing and communications when marketers overestimate how well their customers understand what they’re saying. Keeping things simple helps, but who’s to say what’s clear to you is easy for your audience? Also why testing is so important. But what about when trying to craft an elusive messaging or communicating with a diverse audience? One sneak way to overcome it? Instead of framing a message rationally or using technical terms, try appealing to the feeling of your message. What’s the emotion you're trying to elicit? That will be much more relatable, and impactful but also translatable.

Default is believing

Bite-size: Do you know that when we see, read, or hear something we assume it is true by default? We do this to save mental effort.

This cognitive bias is called the Truth-Default Theory and it’s important for marketers to understand when crafting their messages, especially in this age of misinformation and distrust.

Full-size:
One reason why misinformation takes hold in the first place is because of the Truth-Default Theory. The belief is that humans are psychologically predisposed to assume truth. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense: constant skepticism would be exhausting and impractical so assuming truth allows us to function efficiently. While it enables smoother social interaction, it makes us vulnerable to deception. And with the burning of mistrust amid the swirl of misinformation, this is NOT good for marketing communication.

Sure some cues/triggers lead to doubt (e.g., inconsistencies, contradictions), but when the audience is in a truth-default state, more complex and misleading explanations are even less likely to evaluate the message critically. This can perpetuate misunderstandings or even misinformation.

This is a cognitive bias but the implications for communication (looking at you marketers) when crafting a message make sure to keep things clear and simple upfront (short term), while building trust and encouraging critical engagement (e.g., clear evidence, transparency) to evaluate your message which fosters a deeper connection.

You’re underestimating context, here’s why.

Bite-size: We often overestimate the character or personality of a person when making a judgment or evaluation, and instead ignore the very powerful influence of the context or situation we’re in.

This is called the Fundamental Attribution Error and it is the main argument for the importance of social psychology.

Full-size:
You're at a coffee shop, and the barista gets your order wrong. You might think, "They're careless and not paying attention to their job". However, they might be dealing with a rush of orders, feeling stressed, or new to the job. You initially attributed the error to a personal trait but in reality, there are situational factors that are more likely to have caused the mistake.

This example reminds us how easily we can overlook external pressures in everyday interactions. But it’s also something that plagues client-agency teams.

Perhaps misattributing lower-than-expected sales from a campaign due to audience preference, when situational factors might be at play. Message misalignment or customer journey gaps are two obvious ones, but it could also be (something that gets in the way of purchase), or less obvious factors like 

You launch a high-budget campaign for a luxury watch brand—it features stunning visuals, celebrity endorsements, and a focus on exclusivity—but the brand sees little uplift in sales. People within the agency might conclude, "Consumers just don’t care about luxury watches anymore" (attributing the poor performance to a lack of interest or changing tastes). But what’s likely to be the case can be attributed to situational factors. Examples: message misalignment, customer journey gaps, over-saturated message or fatigue, or it was just a timing issue.