Advertising companies have long profited from a simple, but powerful psychological fact: the more familiar we are with something, the safer it makes us feel. We might think we’re unaffected by repeated exposure to ads, but the reality is that when buying a product, we’re likely to reach for the one with the familiar logo, even if that’s the only thing we know about it.
We’ve evolved to regard new things with suspicion, and to become personally attached to things we know. Our language reflects this bias; familiar means ‘of the family’, while strange combines the meanings of ‘out of the ordinary’ with weird or even dangerous.
This tendency to identify with the familiar extends to our thoughts and opinions. Imagine a colleague tells you that they were badly treated by someone else. You’re likely to sympathise and think badly of the other party. Later, when the other person tells you their version of events, you’re likely to filter their story through your already-formed opinion. Maybe you’re thinking otherwise: “Nonsense! I’m not biassed. I’d listen to both sides.” But now imagine that you’ve heard the first person’s story a hundred times before you get to hear the second.
Nowadays we’re incessantly bombarded with information, opinions and theories. We rarely have time to fully investigate what we hear. Instead, we rely on the short-hand approach: screen out much of it by attaching ourselves to things we hear early and treating with suspicion anything we hear later.
So next time you’re loudly stating an opinion or arguing a point, stop to ask yourself: Am I so certain of this because I have fully researched the facts, considered the options and come to a reasoned conclusion? Or am I attached to this opinion simply because I’ve thought it many times before?
Stephanie Hills ©