Frequency Illusion (Baader–Meinhof Phenomenon)
After learning about something, you may notice it repeatedly without its actual prevalence having changed.
You learn an unfamiliar word, then notice it in a book, a conversation, and a headline. It can feel as if the word suddenly spread everywhere.
A person hears the term ‘urban rewilding’ for the first time and then spots it on several websites. Those sightings may reflect increased attention; a separate comparison would be needed to establish a broader rise.
The frequency illusion describes this experience of noticing something more after it has become relevant or familiar to you.
Attention may now select the item from a busy environment, and each sighting is easier to recognize. Other occasions when it is absent may pass unnoticed.
The experience does not prove that the item's real-world prevalence rose. It also does not prove that prevalence stayed constant; those are separate questions.
A new health term, product, or social trend can trigger the same feeling. Personal attention may shift even while the surrounding environment changes little.
After buying a certain kind of bicycle, someone may notice similar models on every commute. The observations are real, but the purchase may have changed what catches the rider's eye.
Sometimes exposure really does increase, perhaps because a topic is trending or a new campaign is underway. The illusion is a reason to check, not a reason to assume.
Anecdotal sightings can be genuine and still provide an incomplete sample. Search results and social feeds can further shape what appears in view.
If prevalence matters, define what counts as an instance and compare observations across a suitable period or source.
You can also notice the shift in your own attention: when did the item become meaningful, and what would you have overlooked before?
Noticing more is worth observing. It is not, on its own, a count of how much more exists.
Psychological perspective
Once a concept becomes accessible, attention can be more likely to select matching examples, and recognition can make each example feel fluent.
This is an account of perception and attention, not proof that a person imagined what they saw. It simply separates noticing from measuring prevalence.
Thinking clearly
Write down what counts as an occurrence before tracking a trend. Consistent definitions make comparisons more meaningful.
Check a suitable source or time series if the actual rate matters, and look for changes in how data were collected.
Notice your attention without scolding yourself. Increased awareness can be useful while remaining different from evidence of increased frequency.
What kind of observation would distinguish a change in prevalence from a change in what you notice?