There’s a moment every regular knows. You walk in, the barista catches your eye, and before you’ve reached the counter they’ve said it: “The usual?” It’s a small thing. Two words about milk and espresso. And yet it lands with a warmth completely out of proportion to what actually happened, because what actually happened is that somebody in your suburb knows who you are.

Going to the same café every week looks like a habit of convenience, or laziness, or loyalty to a good pour. It’s also, quietly, one of the better social moves available to an adult. There’s a surprising amount of research behind why — most of it decades old, none of it written with cafés in mind, all of it landing squarely on the corner table you keep sitting at.

Familiarity works on you before you notice

Start with the oldest finding. In 1968 the psychologist Robert Zajonc published a monograph called “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. He showed people things they had no reason to care about — invented words, Chinese characters they couldn’t read, photographs of unfamiliar faces — and varied how often each one appeared. The result held across every kind of stimulus: the more often people saw something, the more they liked it. Not because they learned anything about it. They didn’t. Repetition alone was enough.

Psychologists have replicated the mere-exposure effect for over half a century, and it’s worth sitting with how strange it is. We like things — and people — more, simply because we have seen them before. Familiarity isn’t a by-product of liking someone. It runs the other way. Familiarity comes first, and liking follows it in.

The woman in the lecture hall

The study that moves this from the lab to something like real life came in 1992, from Richard Moreland and Scott Beach at the University of Pittsburgh. Published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, it’s about as close as research gets to a controlled experiment on being a regular.

Four women, similar in appearance, posed as students in a large university lecture course of 130 undergraduates. One never attended. The others attended five, ten, or fifteen sessions. The rules were strict: arrive a few minutes early, walk slowly to a visible seat, take notes, leave without speaking to anyone. No conversation, no eye contact over shared assignments. Just presence, repeated.

At the end of term, the real students were shown photos of all four women and asked to rate them. The pattern was clean: the more sessions a woman had attended, the more attractive, likeable and similar-to-themselves the students judged her — even though most couldn’t confidently say they’d ever seen her. The exposure barely registered as memory. It registered as warmth.

If you’ve been going to the same café every Saturday for two months, you are the woman in the lecture hall. The other regulars, the staff, the man with the greyhound — none of them could tell you when you started coming. But you’ve been rated. You’re already liked slightly more than a stranger, and you haven’t said a word.

Doesn’t familiarity breed contempt?

The proverb says otherwise, and for a while the research seemed to as well. A 2007 paper by Michael Norton, Jeana Frost and Dan Ariely found that the more trait information people read about a stranger on paper, the less they tended to like them — ambiguity was doing the flattering work, and detail punctured it.

But paper profiles aren’t people, and a 2011 study led by Harry Reis at the University of Rochester tested the question the way life actually poses it. In “Familiarity Does Indeed Promote Attraction in Live Interaction”, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pairs of strangers talked face to face for varying lengths of time. The more they interacted, the more they liked each other — and the effect ran through exactly the things a café supplies for free: growing comfort, a sense that the other person was responsive, the feeling of actually knowing them. Reading about someone can wear thin. Being around someone, in person, mostly doesn’t. The contempt proverb turns out to describe dating-app profiles better than it describes people.

Why the barista knowing your order matters

So repetition makes you liked. But the regular’s café does something else as well, and it runs through the smallest interactions in your week — the ones that barely count as relationships at all.

In 2013, researchers Gillian Sandstrom and Elizabeth Dunn sent people into a busy Starbucks with one of two instructions: be as efficient as possible, or have a genuine interaction with the barista — smile, make eye contact, have a brief chat. The people who treated the barista like a person walked out in a better mood and with a stronger sense of belonging than the ones who treated the counter like a vending machine. The study’s title asks its own question: “Is Efficiency Overrated?”

The same pair ran a broader study, published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin in 2014, in which students and community members carried clickers and counted their daily interactions. On days when people had more of these weak-tie moments — the nod, the g’day, the thirty seconds of chat with someone whose surname you’ll never know — they reported more happiness and a stronger feeling of belonging. Not instead of close friendship. Alongside it. The peripheral people in your week turn out to carry real weight.

And for some people, the café carries more than that. A 2006 study by Mark Rosenbaum in the Journal of Service Research looked at why third places — diners, coffee shops, taverns — become meaningful, and found that many regulars, especially older ones who’d lost a partner or a job or their health, drew genuine companionship and emotional support from what he called their commercial friendships. For them the venue had stopped being a place to buy things. It had become, in his framing, something closer to home.

Familiarity is the on-ramp, not the destination

Here’s the honest limit of all this. Mere exposure makes people warm to you; it doesn’t make them know you. The regulars at your café like you more than they did in March, and if you moved suburbs next week, none of them would notice for a month. Somebody still has to say something. The research just means that when someone finally does — you, ideally — the ground is already soft. A first sentence to a familiar face is a far smaller jump than a first sentence to a stranger, for both of you.

So the playbook, such as it is: pick one café, not five. Go on the same day, at roughly the same time, because the other regulars are creatures of habit too and you want to keep landing in the same room as the same people. Sit in rather than takeaway. Learn the barista’s name and use it. None of this is networking. It’s just showing up, repeatedly, where you can be seen — which is most of what the lecture-hall study says liking is made of.

That slow ambient warm-up is the traditional route, and it works. Flat White exists for the step it can’t do for you: the app puts two people at a table — one café, one hour, on purpose — so the first sentence doesn’t have to wait for the two-month mark. The café you both keep coming back to afterwards is the part you build yourselves.

Meet one person. Over coffee. On purpose.
Australia’s opening city-by-city. Join the waitlist at joinflatwhite.com →