Showing posts with label interaction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interaction. Show all posts

29 October 2025

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 110: The Mere-Exposure Effect - How Familiarity Breeds Trust)

Prompt Engineering Series
Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a post of 600 words on mere-exposure effect in AI"

Introduction

The mere-exposure effect, first identified by psychologist Robert Zajonc in 1968, describes how people tend to develop a preference for things simply because they are familiar with them. Whether it's a song, a face, or a brand logo, repeated exposure often leads to increased liking. In recent years, this effect has found a new frontier: artificial intelligence. As AI systems become more integrated into our daily routines - from voice assistants to recommendation engines - the mere-exposure effect is quietly influencing how we perceive and accept these technologies.

The Psychology Behind Familiarity

At its core, the mere-exposure effect is about cognitive fluency. When we encounter something repeatedly, our brains process it more easily, which feels good and leads to positive associations. This mechanism is especially powerful in shaping attitudes toward novel or initially ambiguous stimuli - like AI. Early interactions with AI might feel strange or even unsettling, but over time, familiarity breeds comfort. This is particularly relevant given the 'black box' nature of many AI systems, where users don’t fully understand how decisions are made [2].

AI in Everyday Life: From Novelty to Normalcy

AI has transitioned from a futuristic concept to a routine part of modern life. Consider how often people interact with AI without even realizing it: autocomplete in search engines, personalized playlists, smart home devices, and customer service chatbots. Each interaction reinforces familiarity. A 2024 study on AI psychology suggests that as exposure increases, users report higher trust and lower anxiety about AI systems [1]. This shift is part of what researchers call the 'next to normal' thesis - AI is no longer a novelty but a normalized tool.

Mere-Exposure in Digital Interfaces

Recent research comparing the mere-exposure effect across screens and immersive virtual reality (IVR) found that increased exposure consistently enhanced user preference in both environments. This has implications for AI interfaces: the more users engage with AI through familiar platforms - like smartphones or VR headsets - the more likely they are to develop positive attitudes toward the technology. It also suggests that design consistency and repeated interaction can be strategic tools for improving user experience and trust.

Implications for AI Safety and Ethics

While the mere-exposure effect can foster acceptance, it also raises ethical questions. Familiarity might lead users to overlook risks or blindly trust AI systems. For example, people may accept biased recommendations or privacy-invasive features simply because they’ve grown accustomed to them. This underscores the importance of transparency, education, and regulation in AI development. Designers and policymakers must ensure that increased exposure doesn’t lead to complacency or misuse.

Balancing Familiarity with Understanding

The mere-exposure effect is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it helps integrate AI into society by reducing fear and resistance. On the other, it can mask complexity and encourage passive acceptance. To harness its benefits responsibly, AI developers should pair exposure with explainability. When users understand how AI works, they’re more likely to engage critically rather than just comfortably.

Conclusion

The mere-exposure effect is a subtle yet powerful force shaping our relationship with AI. As AI becomes more embedded in our lives, repeated interactions are making it feel more trustworthy, approachable, and indispensable. But with this growing comfort comes a responsibility: to ensure that familiarity doesn’t replace informed engagement. By recognizing the psychological dynamics at play, we can build AI systems that are not only accepted - but also understood and ethically sound. 

Just try the prompt on Copilot or your favorite AI-powered assistant! Have you got a different/similar result? How big or important is the difference? Any other thoughts?
Just share the link to the post with me and I'll add it to this post as a resource!

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 11) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References: 

[1] Daniel Hepperle & Matthias Wölfel (2024) Exploring Ecological Validity: A Comparative Study of the Mere Exposure Effect on Screens and in Immersive Virtual Reality, Advances in Visual Computi (ISVC 2024)

[2] Yoshija Walter (2024) The Future of Artificial Intelligence Will Be “Next to Normal”—A Perspective on Future Directions and the Psychology of AI Safety Concerns, Nat. Anthropol 2(1),

09 December 2010

♟️Strategic Management: Interaction (Just the Quotes)

"Social structures are the products of social synergy, i.e., of the interaction of different social forces, all of which, in and of themselves, are destructive, but whose combined effect, mutually checking, constraining, and equilibrating one another, is to produce structures. The entire drift is toward economy, conservatism, and the prevention of waste. Social structures are mechanisms for the production of results, and the results cannot be secured without them. They are reservoirs of power." (James Q Dealey & Lester F Ward, "A Text-book of Sociology", 1905)

"The true nature of the universal principle of synergy pervading all nature and creating all the different kinds of structure that we observe to exist, must now be made clearer. Primarily and essentially it is a process of equilibration, i.e., the several forces are first brought into a state of partial equilibrium. It begins in collision, conflict, antagonism, and opposition, and then we have the milder phases of antithesis, competition, and interaction, passing next into a modus vivendi, or compromise, and ending in collaboration and cooperation. […] The entire drift is toward economy, conservatism, and the prevention of waste." (James Q Dealey & Lester F Ward, "A Text-book of Sociology", 1905)

"The leadership and other processes of the organization must be such as to ensure a maximum probability that in all interactions and all interactions and all relationships with the organization each member will, in the light of his background, values, and expectations, view the experience as supportive and one which builds and maintains his sense of personal worth and importance." (Rensis Likert, "New patterns of management", 1961)

"The unique feature of the decision tree is that it allows management to combine analytical techniques such as discounted cash flow and present value methods with a clear portrayal of the impact of future decision alternatives and events. Using the decision tree, management can consider various courses of action with greater ease and clarity. The interactions between present decision alternatives, uncertain events, and future choices and their results become more visible." (John F Magee, "Decision Trees for Decision Making", Harvard Business Review, 1964)

"Interaction and decision making relies heavily on group processes." (Rensis Likert, "The Human Organization", 1967)

"The systems approach to problems focuses on systems taken as a whole, not on their parts taken separately. Such an approach is concerned with total - system performance even when a change in only one or a few of its parts is contemplated because there are some properties of systems that can only be treated adequately from a holistic point of view. These properties derive from the relationship between parts of systems: how the parts interact and fit together." (Russell L Ackoff, "Towards a System of Systems Concepts", 1971) 

"A company is a multidimensional system capable of growth, expansion, and self-regulation. It is, therefore, not a thing but a set of interacting forces. Any theory of organization must be capable of reflecting a company's many facets, its dynamism, and its basic orderliness. When company organization is reviewed, or when reorganizing a company, it must be looked upon as a whole, as a total system." (Albert Low, "Zen and Creative Management", 1976)

"Managers are not confronted with problems that are independent of each other, but with dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations messes. Problems are extracted from messes by analysis. Managers do not solve problems, they manage messes." (Russell L Ackoff, "The future of operational research is past", 1979)

"The manager must decide what type of group is wanted. If cooperation, teamwork, and synergy really matter, then one aims for high task interdependence. One structures the jobs of group members so that they have to interact frequently [...] to get their jobs done. Important outcomes are made dependent on group performance. The outcomes are distributed equally. If frenzied, independent activity is the goal, then one aims for low task interdependence and large rewards are distributed competitively and unequally." (Gregory P Shea & Richard A Guzzo, Sloan Management Review, 1987)

"There are several world view assumptions present in enterprise engineering. The first assumption is that the enterprise can be viewed as a complex system. This is necessary because systems in organizations are systems of organized complexity. Complexity is the result of the multiplicity and intricacy of man’s interaction with other components of the system. Secondly, the enterprise is to be viewed as a system of processes. These processes are engineered both individually and holistically. The final assumption is the use of engineering rigor in transforming the enterprise. The enterprise engineering paradigm views the enterprise as a complex system of processes that can be engineered to accomplish specific organizational objectives. In the Enterprise Engineering paradigm, the enterprise is viewed as a complex system of processes that can be engineered to accomplish specific organizational objectives." (Donald H Liles, "Enterprise modeling within an enterprise engineering framework", 1996)

"Senior management needed to step in and make some very tough moves. [...] we also realized then that there must be a better way to formulate strategy. What we needed was a balanced interaction between the middle managers, with their deep knowledge but narrow focus, and senior management, whose larger perspective could set a context." (Andrew Grove, Only the Paranoid Survive, 1998)

"True systems thinking, on the other hand, studies each problem as it relates to the organization’s objectives and interaction with its entire environment, looking at it as a whole within its universe. Taking your organization from a partial systems to a true systems state requires effective strategic management and backward thinking." (Stephen G Haines, "The Systems Thinking Approach to Strategic Planning and Management", 2000)

"The whole way of thinking focuses attention, for most, on the designed system, but it never proves sufficient, and they [the managers] have to 'get things done anyway', almost despite the system. What they are not encouraged to do, by this very way of thinking itself, is to pay attention to the detailed interactions between them, through which they "get things done." [This] is a thoroughly stressful daily experience for people." (Ralph D. Stacey et al, "Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking?", 2000)

"The key element of an organization is not a building or a set of policies and procedures; organizations are made up of people and their relationships with one another. An organization exists when people interact with one another to perform essential functions that help attain goals." (Richard Daft, "The Leadership Experience" , 2002)

"Organizations are not systems but the ongoing patterning of interactions between people. Patterns of human interaction produce further patterns of interaction, not some thing outside of the interaction. We call this perspective complex responsive processes of relating." (Ralph Stacey, 2005)

"Synergy occurs when organizational parts interact to produce a joint effect that is greater than the sum of the parts acting alone. As a result the organization may attain a special advantage with respect to cost, market power, technology, or employee." (Richard L Daft, "The Leadership Experience" 4th Ed., 2008)

"Strategy is concerned with an organisation's direction for the future; its purpose, its ambitions, its resources and how it interacts with the environment in which it operates." (Peter Lake & Robert Drake, "Information Systems Management in the Big Data Era", 2014)

"One way of managing complexity is to constrain the freedom of the parts: to hold some of those nonlinear interactions still. Businesses accomplish this with tight rules, processes, hierarchies, policies, and rigid strategies. Gathering people together under a corporate roof reduces complexity by constraining individual autonomy. The upside, of course, is collaboration, alignment of goals, and faster exchange of information." (Paul Gibbons, "The Science of Successful Organizational Change",  2015)

"Data from the customer interactions is the lifeblood for any organisation to view, understand and optimise the customer experience both remotely and on the front line! In the same way that customer experience experts understand that it’s the little things that count, it’s the small data that can make all the difference." (Alan Pennington, "The Customer Experience Book", 2016)

"[…] deliver a customer experience where the customer sees real value from how you use the data that they share with you and they will keep interacting/sharing that data and their consent for you to use it!" (Alan Pennington, "The Customer Experience Book", 2016)

"A system is a framework that orders and sequences activity within the organisation to achieve a purpose within a band of variance that is acceptable to the owner of the system.  Systems are the organisational equivalent of behaviour in human interaction. Systems are the means by which organisations put policies into action.  It is the owner of a system who has the authority to change it, hence his or her clear acceptance of the degree of variation generated by the existing system." (Catherine Burke et al, "Systems Leadership" 2nd Ed., 2018)

"Organizations that rely too heavily on org charts and matrixes to split and control work often fail to create the necessary conditions to embrace innovation while still delivering at a fast pace. In order to succeed at that, organizations need stable teams and effective team patterns and interactions. They need to invest in empowered, skilled teams as the foundation for agility and adaptability. To stay alive in ever more competitive markets, organizations need teams and people who are able to sense when context changes and evolve accordingly." (Matthew Skelton & Manuel Pais, "Team Topologies: Organizing Business and Technology Teams for Fast Flow", 2019)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

About Me

My photo
Koeln, NRW, Germany
IT Professional with more than 25 years experience in IT in the area of full life-cycle of Web/Desktop/Database Applications Development, Software Engineering, Consultancy, Data Management, Data Quality, Data Migrations, Reporting, ERP implementations & support, Team/Project/IT Management, etc.