Why Do People Choose Familiar Classics Over "Promising New Products": The Brain's Aversion to New Things and the Market's Return to Classics

In front of the supermarket shelf, I pick up the usual ketchup. On the video streaming service, I glance at the new release that caught my eye but end up playing the usual show. Even though I think the new features on my smartphone seem convenient, I postpone setting them up. Every day, we waver between "the unknown that might be better" and "the familiar that is hard to go wrong with." A study introduced on Phys.org on March 11 perceives this commonplace dilemma as a rather fundamental issue. Why do people return to familiar choices even when they know there are new options available?

The study was conducted by Stanton Hudja and colleagues at the Illinois Institute of Technology. The paper was published online in the journal Experimental Economics on November 24, 2025, and examined whether people should continue with "actions that work for now" or try "unknown options that might be better," using the so-called multi-armed bandit problem. This is a classic framework likened to choosing which of several slot machines to pull and is a concept applied not only to consumer behavior but also to technology adoption, recommendation algorithms, and ad delivery.

The main point of the paper is clear. People are not simply "averse to new things"; rather, when balancing exploration and stability, they underestimate the future value of exploration more than they realize. The research team conducted four types of experiments with different conditions, such as whether the period was finite or infinite and whether there were two or three options, showing that many participants' behaviors could be explained by strategies strongly influenced by recent results or reinforcement learning strategies. On the other hand, actual humans have a bias that makes them even more likely to "return to what they chose before" than simple models suggest, and the study found that strategies incorporating this bias better explained the behavior of the subjects.

In the Phys.org article, Hudja explains, "People tend to ignore new brands and technologies because they dislike uncertainty and discount the future benefits of gathering information about unknown options." This is interesting. We often verbalize reasons for not trying new products as "no time," "comparison is difficult," or "I'm not having any issues with the current one." However, from the study's perspective, this is not so much laziness as it is a rather natural decision-making habit for humans. The combination of avoiding immediate losses and underestimating long-term learning opportunities creates the "strength of the familiar."

In fact, this overlaps with a structure long known in the world of brands. Classic research on "status quo bias" has shown that changing options involves exploration costs, switching costs, and uncertainty, making people more likely to stay with the status quo. Additionally, research on new product adoption has pointed out that the uncertainties consumers are concerned about include not only price but also "whether it can be used properly," "how it will be perceived by others," and "whether they will regret it." The current study has re-visualized these psychological aspects as mechanisms of everyday decision-making.

The reason this discussion is important now is that it doesn't just end with "famous brands are strong." In an era where new technologies and services are constantly emerging, consumers gain the freedom of choice but are also more prone to comparison fatigue. While any choice may be reasonably usable, the stress of making a wrong choice is significant. Therefore, rather than meticulously investigating unknown values, reassurance factors like "I already know it," "someone is using it," or "there were no problems before" are more likely to influence actual purchasing and adoption. The study indicates that the question is not the allure of novelty but how to reduce uncertainty first.

Even looking at reactions on social media and online communities, the sense of this study is widely shared. The most noticeable reaction is the understanding that "it's not that people dislike new things, but they don't want to pay the cost of failure." In marketing discussions, voices are emerging that brand stories and flashy appeals are weak, and actual usage experiences and others' usage impressions are important. In other words, more than unknown allure, evidence that can be chosen with confidence is necessary. The study's finding of a "tendency to underestimate the value of exploration" is expressed on social media as a living sentiment that "the effort to try feels higher."

The next most common reaction is "comparison itself is exhausting." On the internet, choices continue to increase, and every new product is labeled as "revolutionary," "convenient," and "highly rated." In this context, consumers use familiar brands as a "cognitive shortcut" rather than accurately distinguishing functional differences. This is not so much a lack of rationality as it is an adaptation to information overload. In technology communities discussing recommendation algorithms and A/B testing, the distinction between short-term outcome optimization and long-term learning acquisition is repeatedly pointed out, and on the consumer side, the structure where "not making a wrong choice immediately" is more likely to be chosen is visible.

Furthermore, in the context of social media, there is a strong sentiment that "newness is not justice." Especially in the technology field, there is no shortage of complaints that there are too many new features and services for users to bear the learning cost. The study also mentioned the tendency to ignore new technologies, but behind this is not only anxiety about the unknown but also a sense of fatigue from "having to relearn again." In other words, consumers are not so much conservative as they are trying to protect their time and attention. New products lose not only because of low quality but also because they impose the cost of understanding on the consumer.

This study may seem like a tailwind for existing brands. Being familiar itself becomes a weapon. However, that advantage is not permanent. Recent consumer surveys show that many people feel brand messages do not resonate with their needs and values, and it is no longer an era where they continue to be chosen based solely on name recognition. In other words, being familiar is strong as an entry point, but it is not enough. Without reasons to continue using, convincing quality, and trustworthy explanations, the "reliable staple" can turn into a "habitual staple."

So, what should new brands and services do? What can be gleaned from this study is not to demand too much "adventure" from consumers. Before bold differentiation, ease of trial, money-back guarantees, free trials, easy comparison, third-party usage reviews, and low introduction effort—reducing "exploration costs"—are effective. The challenge lies in how much the anxiety of being unknown can be reduced rather than extolling the value of the unknown. Novelty is attractive, but it is hard to choose if it is not translated into reassurance.

From the consumer's perspective, this study is a bit of a wake-up call. We often think of choosing the familiar as rational. In many cases, that's correct. But at the same time, there is a possibility that we are missing out on products that suit us better or more convenient technologies. The study suggests that it might be worth consciously "exploring" once in a while. It doesn't have to be every time. However, if everything is filled with the familiar, the opportunity for learning itself is lost. The materials for making better choices in the future can only be obtained through somewhat roundabout trial and error.

In the end, choosing familiar things is not a weakness but a human trait. With limited time, attention, and tolerance for failure, we live by accumulating "sufficiently safe choices." However, if this natural inclination is too strong, it becomes disadvantageous for new entrants in the market, and new technologies and ideas are less likely to spread in society. Therefore, the important thing is not to blame consumers but to design an environment where new things can be tried with confidence. In brand strategy and technology diffusion, what is questioned is not the flashiness of innovation but the meticulousness of design that overcomes anxiety.

Source URL

News article introduced on Phys.org. Used to confirm the research overview, researcher comments, publication date, and DOI information
https://phys.org/news/2026-03-explores-consumers-familiar.html

Distribution information from the research institution (Research introduction from Illinois Institute of Technology. Used to confirm press release-like information with the same content as the original article)
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1119654

Original paper (Paper published in Experimental Economics. Used to confirm research design, experimental conditions, and main conclusions)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/experimental-economics/article/strategies-in-the-multiarmed-bandit/6277564B7ADDCC01810732D9A7366284

Separate information on the paper's abstract (Publication page on the Macquarie University side. Used to confirm the paper's abstract and supplementary explanations)
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/strategies-in-the-multi-armed-bandit/

Publication information of the academic journal (Used to confirm publication date, volume, issue, and page information)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/experimental-economics/latest-issue

Reference for classic research on status quo bias (Used to explain the background of why consumers are prone to maintaining the status quo due to uncertainty and switching costs)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5152072_Status_Quo_Bias_in_Decision-Making

Research on uncertainty in new product adoption (Supplementary information on how performance and symbolic uncertainties become barriers in adopting new products and technologies)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.320

Research on how technology increases choice uncertainty (Supplementary information on how uncertainty during new technology adoption can lower satisfaction and purchase intention)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10660-024-09808-7

Supplementary reference for SNS and online reactions 1 (Used to confirm that the article is becoming a topic online)
https://www.buzzing.cc/en/

Supplementary reference for SNS and online reactions 2 (Used to confirm discussions in marketing communities where actual usage value and empathy are emphasized over brand storytelling)
https://www.reddit.com/r/marketing/comments/1kfc0or/brand_storytelling_in_2025_are_people_tired_of/

Supplementary reference for SNS and online reactions 3 (Used to confirm that the bandit problem is understood as a trade-off between short-term results and long-term learning in technology communities)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4052997

Supplementary reference for SNS and online reactions 4 (Used to confirm discussions on the difference between A/B test optimization and long-term learning and exploration)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11437114

Supplementary reference for SNS and online reactions 5 (Used to confirm discussions that short-term optimization may overlook long-term quality and learning)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17443485

Supplementary material on consumer psychology (Used to assist in organizing the idea that familiar brands are more likely to be chosen under uncertainty)
https://kadence.com/en-us/knowledge/the-impact-of-uncertainty-on-consumer-buying-decisions/

Supplementary material on the distance between brands and consumers (Used to supplement the situation where brand messages are less resonant and not easily chosen based on name recognition alone)
https://www.ey.com/en_gl/newsroom/2025/03/ey-future-consumer-index-brands-fall-out-of-favor-as-pressure-mounts-to-win-back-faltering-customer-loyalty

Supplementary material on trust (Used to supplement the background of the importance of trust in brand and technology adoption)
https://www.edelman.com/trust/trust-barometer