When Algorithms Repeat What We See... Does the Familiar Become "the Best"?
last updated: 2 h ago
Amman — In the digital age, not everything we see often is something we choose, but seeing something repeatedly may make certain options feel closer to us than others. At first, this might seem like a natural result of the search process, but with continued exposure, a product shifts from being a passing option to a familiar name, and perhaps even to an option that seems like the most suitable among the available choices.اضافة اعلان
Over time, the question may no longer be "Is this product actually good?" but rather "Why do I see it everywhere?" Do algorithms simply show us what we're interested in, or can what they repeatedly show us actually shape what we prefer and consider suitable for ourselves?
Shahd, 20, says she was looking for a sunscreen suited to her sensitive skin, and among the many options, she began noticing a particular product appearing repeatedly through ads and digital content, alongside positive experiences shared by people who spoke about its benefits.
With how often she saw it, the product came to seem like a reliable and suitable choice to her, especially since she was searching among many options, so she decided to buy it despite never having tried it before. But the experience turned out differently: the product caused irritation to her skin, and she discovered that its frequent appearance and the praise for it were not enough to judge whether it actually suited her. Her experience raises a question about whether the product's repeated appearance made her view it as the right choice before she had confirmed that for herself.
Repetition may increase familiarity
Research in psychology indicates that repeated exposure to something can be linked to increased familiarity and preference toward it. In a comprehensive analysis published in 2017, researchers examined 268 estimates drawn from 81 studies on the effect of repeated exposure on preference, familiarity, and recognition, finding that the effect of mere exposure followed a curve marked by an initial increase in preference with repetition, before the effect declined with further exposure.
This concept is known as the "mere exposure effect," and it helps explain how something can become more familiar the more it appears, without this meaning that repetition makes a person prefer it without limit.
The algorithm predicts what will attract us
Media consultant and marketing and PR trainer Bashir Mreish explains that recommendation algorithms work primarily by analyzing user behavior in order to predict content likely to catch someone's interest or prompt them to engage with it.
He notes that these algorithms don't rely solely on search activity, but look at a range of signals, such as content the user watches, viewing duration, what they like, share, or save, the accounts they follow, and even the type of content they pause on without directly interacting with it.
According to Mreish, the algorithm doesn't only ask "What does this user like?" but tries to determine the content most likely to keep them interested and engaged.
He adds that the continued appearance of similar content is tied to how recommendation systems work. If a user watches several videos about cars, for example, the algorithm is likely to infer that this topic interests them, and will begin showing more related content. This doesn't necessarily mean the user doesn't want to see other topics, but rather that the data available to the platform indicates this type of content has a higher likelihood of catching their attention. Here lies the paradox, according to Mreish: "What is best for engagement isn't always what's best for discovering new options."
Why might the familiar seem more suitable?
From a psychological perspective, expert, media professional, and educational and social consultant Dr. Ayesh Al-Nawaiseh believes the phenomenon is tied to several psychological and cognitive concepts, including "mere exposure," the "illusion of truth," and ease of cognitive processing.
Al-Nawaiseh explains that the first exposure to a new idea or product may require greater effort to process and recognize, while recognition becomes easier and faster with repeated exposure, generating an unconscious feeling of comfort and familiarity.
He notes that the human brain tends to approach the unknown with caution, while feeling more at ease with the familiar. With repeated viewing of something, feelings toward it may shift from neutrality to familiarity, and from there, a person may begin to prefer it over an alternative they haven't been exposed to as much, even if that other alternative is actually better.
The matter doesn't stop at familiarity either, as Al-Nawaiseh also links the phenomenon to what's known as the "illusion of truth," explaining that repeatedly seeing a product's name or hearing a certain phrase can make the ease of recalling it and its familiarity seem like an indicator of credibility.
Following this logic, a person might tell themselves: "I know this name well, people talk about it, and it keeps appearing in front of me, so there must be a reason for that," turning repetition into a factor that can reinforce a sense of trustworthiness, even without having sufficient information about the product or comparing it to other alternatives.
This idea connects to a study published in 2019 on the "illusion of truth," in which researchers tested the effect of repeating statements on judgments of their truthfulness, finding that repeating a statement increased the likelihood of it being judged as true, an effect that appeared even with statements varying in how believable they were.
This finding doesn't mean that a product's repeated appearance necessarily makes it better or more trustworthy; the study didn't directly test products or purchasing decisions, but rather examined judgments about the truthfulness of statements. Still, it provides scientific support for the idea that repetition can influence certain judgments people form about what they're exposed to.
When the familiar becomes closer than the alternatives
Al-Nawaiseh believes that people sometimes use cognitive shortcuts to save mental effort, rather than engaging in a complex process of analyzing and comparing all available products. In such cases, familiarity becomes a clear factor a person can rely on to form a quick judgment.
With the repeated appearance of a particular option, a person's focus on it may increase, while less-visible alternatives become less present in their mind, which may make them feel that the recurring option is the natural or default choice, even without having actually compared it to other options.
Here, this psychological mechanism intersects with how algorithms work: through their searching, watching, and interacting, users send signals to the platform, and the algorithm in turn re-presents content based on those signals, which can lead to the continued presence of the same type of products or ideas in front of them.
When options narrow without us noticing
Mreish believes that a platform's continued reliance on a user's past behavior to personalize content can make seeing a certain type of content far more common than seeing different content.
He explains that this can be related to what's known as the "filter bubble," but that doesn't mean every algorithm inevitably leads to a closed bubble; platforms use multiple signals, and may also try to introduce new content into the user's experience. Mreish describes the relationship between the user and the algorithm as circular: we tell the algorithm, through our behavior, what we're interested in, and it in turn determines a large part of what we see, and what we see can influence our future interests, decisions, and behavior.
From here, the issue isn't limited to the algorithm showing content similar to what we've watched before; rather, the content that repeatedly appears in front of us can become part of the environment within which we make our decisions.
Mreish poses a question that sums up this relationship: "Is what we want today truly what we wanted, or is it partly a result of what the algorithm chose to show us yesterday?"
When does repetition turn into an influence on decisions?
According to Al-Nawaiseh, repetition alone doesn't necessarily lead to a decision, but becomes more influential when it coincides with an actual need on the person's part.
A user may see a product many times without caring about it, but when they need a product from that same category, the familiar name may quickly come to mind as a known option. This effect grows stronger when a person is under time pressure, psychological stress, or facing an urgent need, since their capacity for critical thinking decreases and they may lean toward the option that seems familiar and safe.
In this way, repetition can become a factor that quietly builds familiarity in the background, while need makes this familiar option more present at the moment of decision.
Could the effect be greater among teenagers?
Al-Nawaiseh believes the effect of these mechanisms may be greater among children and teenagers compared to adults, for several reasons, including that the areas of the brain associated with logical thinking, weighing probabilities, and decision-making are still developing during this stage.
Adolescence is also associated with a need for acceptance and social belonging, which may make products or ideas that repeat and turn into a "trend" seem, to a teenager, like a means of social integration.
He also points to the factor of experience: the less experience a person has with available products and options, the more they rely on external indicators, including repetition, to form their judgment of quality or suitability.
How do we know our choice is influenced by repetition?
Al-Nawaiseh believes a user can test the motives behind their choice through a simple question: "Why did I choose this product?"
If the main reason is recognizing the name or its fame, without being able to cite specific features or advantages that make it suitable for the need at hand, then repetition may have played a role in the decision.
He also suggests comparing the product to another alternative without knowing its name or brand, to determine whether the choice is based on the product's actual features and function, or on the familiarity tied to its name.
He also calls for paying attention to a feeling of impulsiveness: if a user feels a strong urge to buy a product as soon as they see it, it may be worth pausing and reconsidering the reason for that urge, rather than deciding immediately.
How do we regain our space for choice?
Mreish believes the user isn't entirely a passive recipient, as they can influence the type of content algorithms suggest by following new accounts and topics, searching for different content, engaging with it, using options like "not interested" or hiding content, and clearing search or viewing history when such options are available.
He affirms that the algorithm learns from user behavior: if someone wants to see more varied content, they need to give it new and varied signals.
For his part, Al-Nawaiseh stresses the importance of diversifying sources and not relying on a single platform when gathering information or making purchasing decisions, alongside actively searching for alternatives and objective comparisons, and not treating popularity or frequent appearance as sufficient proof of quality.
He also suggests that when a product appears repeatedly, one should avoid making an immediate decision, and instead wait a while before buying, so that the decision isn't driven solely by the enthusiasm and familiarity that repetition has created.
In the end, a product appearing frequently in front of a user doesn't mean it's the best or most suitable one for them; it may simply reflect past behavior that the algorithm picked up on and built its recommendations around. And with repeated exposure, the familiar becomes more present in our minds than alternatives we don't see as often.
Here, the question is no longer just "What does the algorithm choose to show us?" but rather: to what extent can what it continually shows us influence what we ourselves choose?
Resource: Al-Ghad. Reporting: Taif Ibdah
Over time, the question may no longer be "Is this product actually good?" but rather "Why do I see it everywhere?" Do algorithms simply show us what we're interested in, or can what they repeatedly show us actually shape what we prefer and consider suitable for ourselves?
Shahd, 20, says she was looking for a sunscreen suited to her sensitive skin, and among the many options, she began noticing a particular product appearing repeatedly through ads and digital content, alongside positive experiences shared by people who spoke about its benefits.
With how often she saw it, the product came to seem like a reliable and suitable choice to her, especially since she was searching among many options, so she decided to buy it despite never having tried it before. But the experience turned out differently: the product caused irritation to her skin, and she discovered that its frequent appearance and the praise for it were not enough to judge whether it actually suited her. Her experience raises a question about whether the product's repeated appearance made her view it as the right choice before she had confirmed that for herself.
Repetition may increase familiarity
Research in psychology indicates that repeated exposure to something can be linked to increased familiarity and preference toward it. In a comprehensive analysis published in 2017, researchers examined 268 estimates drawn from 81 studies on the effect of repeated exposure on preference, familiarity, and recognition, finding that the effect of mere exposure followed a curve marked by an initial increase in preference with repetition, before the effect declined with further exposure.
This concept is known as the "mere exposure effect," and it helps explain how something can become more familiar the more it appears, without this meaning that repetition makes a person prefer it without limit.
The algorithm predicts what will attract us
Media consultant and marketing and PR trainer Bashir Mreish explains that recommendation algorithms work primarily by analyzing user behavior in order to predict content likely to catch someone's interest or prompt them to engage with it.
He notes that these algorithms don't rely solely on search activity, but look at a range of signals, such as content the user watches, viewing duration, what they like, share, or save, the accounts they follow, and even the type of content they pause on without directly interacting with it.
According to Mreish, the algorithm doesn't only ask "What does this user like?" but tries to determine the content most likely to keep them interested and engaged.
He adds that the continued appearance of similar content is tied to how recommendation systems work. If a user watches several videos about cars, for example, the algorithm is likely to infer that this topic interests them, and will begin showing more related content. This doesn't necessarily mean the user doesn't want to see other topics, but rather that the data available to the platform indicates this type of content has a higher likelihood of catching their attention. Here lies the paradox, according to Mreish: "What is best for engagement isn't always what's best for discovering new options."
Why might the familiar seem more suitable?
From a psychological perspective, expert, media professional, and educational and social consultant Dr. Ayesh Al-Nawaiseh believes the phenomenon is tied to several psychological and cognitive concepts, including "mere exposure," the "illusion of truth," and ease of cognitive processing.
Al-Nawaiseh explains that the first exposure to a new idea or product may require greater effort to process and recognize, while recognition becomes easier and faster with repeated exposure, generating an unconscious feeling of comfort and familiarity.
He notes that the human brain tends to approach the unknown with caution, while feeling more at ease with the familiar. With repeated viewing of something, feelings toward it may shift from neutrality to familiarity, and from there, a person may begin to prefer it over an alternative they haven't been exposed to as much, even if that other alternative is actually better.
The matter doesn't stop at familiarity either, as Al-Nawaiseh also links the phenomenon to what's known as the "illusion of truth," explaining that repeatedly seeing a product's name or hearing a certain phrase can make the ease of recalling it and its familiarity seem like an indicator of credibility.
Following this logic, a person might tell themselves: "I know this name well, people talk about it, and it keeps appearing in front of me, so there must be a reason for that," turning repetition into a factor that can reinforce a sense of trustworthiness, even without having sufficient information about the product or comparing it to other alternatives.
This idea connects to a study published in 2019 on the "illusion of truth," in which researchers tested the effect of repeating statements on judgments of their truthfulness, finding that repeating a statement increased the likelihood of it being judged as true, an effect that appeared even with statements varying in how believable they were.
This finding doesn't mean that a product's repeated appearance necessarily makes it better or more trustworthy; the study didn't directly test products or purchasing decisions, but rather examined judgments about the truthfulness of statements. Still, it provides scientific support for the idea that repetition can influence certain judgments people form about what they're exposed to.
When the familiar becomes closer than the alternatives
Al-Nawaiseh believes that people sometimes use cognitive shortcuts to save mental effort, rather than engaging in a complex process of analyzing and comparing all available products. In such cases, familiarity becomes a clear factor a person can rely on to form a quick judgment.
With the repeated appearance of a particular option, a person's focus on it may increase, while less-visible alternatives become less present in their mind, which may make them feel that the recurring option is the natural or default choice, even without having actually compared it to other options.
Here, this psychological mechanism intersects with how algorithms work: through their searching, watching, and interacting, users send signals to the platform, and the algorithm in turn re-presents content based on those signals, which can lead to the continued presence of the same type of products or ideas in front of them.
When options narrow without us noticing
Mreish believes that a platform's continued reliance on a user's past behavior to personalize content can make seeing a certain type of content far more common than seeing different content.
He explains that this can be related to what's known as the "filter bubble," but that doesn't mean every algorithm inevitably leads to a closed bubble; platforms use multiple signals, and may also try to introduce new content into the user's experience. Mreish describes the relationship between the user and the algorithm as circular: we tell the algorithm, through our behavior, what we're interested in, and it in turn determines a large part of what we see, and what we see can influence our future interests, decisions, and behavior.
From here, the issue isn't limited to the algorithm showing content similar to what we've watched before; rather, the content that repeatedly appears in front of us can become part of the environment within which we make our decisions.
Mreish poses a question that sums up this relationship: "Is what we want today truly what we wanted, or is it partly a result of what the algorithm chose to show us yesterday?"
When does repetition turn into an influence on decisions?
According to Al-Nawaiseh, repetition alone doesn't necessarily lead to a decision, but becomes more influential when it coincides with an actual need on the person's part.
A user may see a product many times without caring about it, but when they need a product from that same category, the familiar name may quickly come to mind as a known option. This effect grows stronger when a person is under time pressure, psychological stress, or facing an urgent need, since their capacity for critical thinking decreases and they may lean toward the option that seems familiar and safe.
In this way, repetition can become a factor that quietly builds familiarity in the background, while need makes this familiar option more present at the moment of decision.
Could the effect be greater among teenagers?
Al-Nawaiseh believes the effect of these mechanisms may be greater among children and teenagers compared to adults, for several reasons, including that the areas of the brain associated with logical thinking, weighing probabilities, and decision-making are still developing during this stage.
Adolescence is also associated with a need for acceptance and social belonging, which may make products or ideas that repeat and turn into a "trend" seem, to a teenager, like a means of social integration.
He also points to the factor of experience: the less experience a person has with available products and options, the more they rely on external indicators, including repetition, to form their judgment of quality or suitability.
How do we know our choice is influenced by repetition?
Al-Nawaiseh believes a user can test the motives behind their choice through a simple question: "Why did I choose this product?"
If the main reason is recognizing the name or its fame, without being able to cite specific features or advantages that make it suitable for the need at hand, then repetition may have played a role in the decision.
He also suggests comparing the product to another alternative without knowing its name or brand, to determine whether the choice is based on the product's actual features and function, or on the familiarity tied to its name.
He also calls for paying attention to a feeling of impulsiveness: if a user feels a strong urge to buy a product as soon as they see it, it may be worth pausing and reconsidering the reason for that urge, rather than deciding immediately.
How do we regain our space for choice?
Mreish believes the user isn't entirely a passive recipient, as they can influence the type of content algorithms suggest by following new accounts and topics, searching for different content, engaging with it, using options like "not interested" or hiding content, and clearing search or viewing history when such options are available.
He affirms that the algorithm learns from user behavior: if someone wants to see more varied content, they need to give it new and varied signals.
For his part, Al-Nawaiseh stresses the importance of diversifying sources and not relying on a single platform when gathering information or making purchasing decisions, alongside actively searching for alternatives and objective comparisons, and not treating popularity or frequent appearance as sufficient proof of quality.
He also suggests that when a product appears repeatedly, one should avoid making an immediate decision, and instead wait a while before buying, so that the decision isn't driven solely by the enthusiasm and familiarity that repetition has created.
In the end, a product appearing frequently in front of a user doesn't mean it's the best or most suitable one for them; it may simply reflect past behavior that the algorithm picked up on and built its recommendations around. And with repeated exposure, the familiar becomes more present in our minds than alternatives we don't see as often.
Here, the question is no longer just "What does the algorithm choose to show us?" but rather: to what extent can what it continually shows us influence what we ourselves choose?
Resource: Al-Ghad. Reporting: Taif Ibdah
NEWS RELATED TO