Social Cognition
Mere Exposure Task
Also called: mere exposure effect task, exposure effect task, familiarity and liking task, repeated exposure paradigm
Measure how seeing something again raises liking: participants watch unfamiliar shapes shown 0 to 25 times each, then rate how much they like every shape.
6-8 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 100
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 1
What it measures
Measures how seeing a shape again and again raises liking for it. Participants watch unfamiliar shapes shown 0 to 25 times each, rate how much they like every shape, then say which ones they saw.
Constructs
- Exposure-based liking
- Familiarity and preference
- Recognition memory
Research uses
- Attitude and preference research at the group level
- Studies of familiarity, fluency and liking
- Within-study comparison of liking with and without recognition
How the paradigm works
The mere exposure effect is a rise in liking for something that comes only from seeing it again (Zajonc, 1968). Zajonc showed made-up words and Chinese-like characters 0, 1, 2, 5, 10 or 25 times each, for about 2 seconds a time, and the ones shown more often were later rated as meaning something better. Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc (1980) showed irregular octagons so briefly that people picked the ones they had seen at chance (48%), yet chose them as the ones they liked better 60% of the time. A meta-analysis of 268 curves from 81 articles found that liking rises with the number of exposures and then falls again, an inverted U (Montoya and colleagues, 2017).
More about the paradigm
Participants first watch 21 unfamiliar shapes drawn by code, one at a time. Each session's seed deals the shapes to the counts: 6 are never shown and 3 each are shown 1, 2, 5, 10 or 25 times, 129 showings in all, each for 1,000 ms (500 to 2,000 in the settings) with a 500 ms blank after it, never the same shape twice in a row. Eight times a red dot appears in place of a shape, and participants press the space bar or tap the screen. They then mark how much they like each of the 21 shapes on a bar from 0 to 100, with no numbers shown and no starting point, and finally say for each shape whether it appeared while they watched. A short practice with two other shapes comes first.
The main score, the exposure effect, is the mean liking of the shapes shown at least once minus the mean liking of the shapes never shown, in points. A larger effect means seeing the shapes raised liking more; it is not better or worse performance. The task also reports the slope of liking on the number of exposures, mean liking at each count, how often shown and never-shown shapes were said to have appeared, the effect among shapes the participant did not recognize, attention checks passed and median rating time. Many papers on the mere exposure effect study advertising and run no task; this test is the laboratory task. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Exposure Effectpoints
- Mean liking of the shapes shown at least once minus the mean liking of the shapes never shown, on the 0 to 100 bar.
- Positive values mean seeing the shapes raised liking; not better or worse
- Exposure Slopepoints
- Least-squares slope of liking on log2 of the exposures plus one, over all 21 shapes: the rise in liking for each doubling.
- Positive values mean liking rose with exposure
- Liking, Never Shownpoints
- Mean liking of the 6 shapes that were never shown.
- A baseline for the other counts
- Liking, Shown Oncepoints
- Mean liking of the 3 shapes shown once.
- Informational
- Liking, Shown Twicepoints
- Mean liking of the 3 shapes shown twice.
- Informational
- Liking, Shown 5 Timespoints
- Mean liking of the 3 shapes shown 5 times.
- Informational
- Liking, Shown 10 Timespoints
- Mean liking of the 3 shapes shown 10 times.
- Informational
- Liking, Shown 25 Timespoints
- Mean liking of the 3 shapes shown 25 times.
- Informational
- Recognition Hits%
- Share of the shapes shown at least once that the participant said had appeared.
- Higher means more of the shown shapes were recognized
- Recognition False Alarms%
- Share of the never-shown shapes that the participant said had appeared.
- Lower means fewer new shapes were taken for seen ones
- Effect, Not Recognizedpoints
- The exposure effect among the shapes the participant said had not appeared. Blank when no shown or no never-shown shape got that answer.
- Positive values mean liking rose without recognition
- Attention Checks Passed%
- Share of the 8 red dots after which the participant pressed.
- Quality check
- False Pressescount
- Presses while watching other than the one that passed a check.
- Quality check
- Median Rating Timems
- Median time from the start of a rating screen to Confirm, leaving out times under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Ratings Givenitems
- Ratings in the scored run, out of 21.
- Quality check
- Longest Run of One Ratingitems
- Most shapes in a row given exactly the same rating.
- Quality check
- Anticipationscount
- Ratings confirmed within 100 ms of the start of the rating screen.
- Quality check
- Earlier Sessionscount
- This participant's sessions of this test begun before this one.
- More than 0 is flagged: only a first session has shapes never seen before
Use and evidence
100 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 19% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 216 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 28 |
| 2024 | 18 |
| 2023 | 16 |
| 2022 | 20 |
| 2021 | 18 |
| 2020 | 12 |
| 2019 | 22 |
| 2018 | 14 |
| 2017 | 18 |
| 2016 | 18 |
| 2015 | 22 |
| 2014 | 22 |
| 2013 | 22 |
| 2012 | 29 |
| 2011 | 22 |
| 2010 | 19 |
| 2009 | 14 |
| 2008 | 13 |
| 2007 | 12 |
| 2006 | 15 |
| 2005 | 12 |
| 2004 | 9 |
| 2003 | 4 |
| 2002 | 7 |
| 2001 | 15 |
| 2000 | 6 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 16
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 1
Note on the counts: includes advertising papers that run no task.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Shapes
- 21 unfamiliar shapes drawn by code for this task, the same in every session: irregular polygons of 8 corners, all in one dark gray.
- Counts
- The session's seed deals the shapes to the counts: 6 are never shown and 3 each are shown 1, 2, 5, 10 or 25 times, so across sessions every shape takes every count.
- Watching
- 129 showings in a seeded order, never one shape twice in a row, each for 1,000 ms (standard; 500 to 2,000) with a 500 ms blank after it. Participants only watch. Up to 240 px for the shape.
- Attention check
- 8 times a red dot appears in place of a shape, once in each eighth of the showings. The space bar, a click or a tap passes it, up to the end of its blank.
- Rating
- How much do you like this shape? A 0 to 100 bar with no numbers shown and no starting point, from Not at all to Very much, with no time limit, for all 21 shapes in a new order.
- Recognition
- Then, for each shape in a new order: Did this shape appear in part 1? Yes or No.
- Practice
- 2 shapes outside the set: one rating, then the two shapes and the red dot, with feedback.
Many papers on the mere exposure effect study advertising and run no task; this test is the laboratory task. Liking tends to rise with the first exposures and then fall again (Montoya and colleagues, 2017), so the counts run to 25, as in Zajonc (1968). One person's effect rests on 21 ratings, so compare groups. Each person should take the test once, because a second session has seen every shape. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: mere_exposure_rating from the scored run, one rating per shape, with no correct answer. Fewer than all 21 ratings invalidate. Fewer than 75% of the attention checks passed invalidate. The same rating on all 21 shapes invalidates, and more than 8 presses without the dot and an earlier session of this test flag the session for review; an earlier session also withholds the percentile. Ratings under 200 ms on at least half the shapes invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. The score compares shapes shown at different counts, so it needs every rating. Participants only watch, so the dots show they were looking; the sources read used no such check in supervised sessions, and this rate is set for unsupervised online use. One rating for every shape separates nothing (long-string checks; Curran 2016). A second session has seen every shape in the first, so its never-shown shapes are no longer new. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Shape on screen (ms) | 1,000 | 500 to 2,000 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Mere Exposure Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Zajonc, 1968; Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980), with the standard settings (shape on screen (ms): 1,000). The main score was exposure effect (mean liking of the shapes shown at least once minus the mean liking of the shapes never shown, on the 0 to 100 bar).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848The counts 0, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 25, and passive watching.
- Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207(4430), 557-558. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7352271Irregular octagons, and the recognition question.
- Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., Vevea, J. L., Citkowicz, M., & Lauber, E. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 459-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000085Liking rises, then falls, with more exposures.
Source papers
- Zajonc RB (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2):1-27.Paradigm source, Adults
- Montoya RM, Horton RS, Vevea JL, Citkowicz M, Lauber EA (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5):459-498.Paradigm source, Adults
- No normative data for this task.Paradigm source, N/A
Questions
How long does the Mere Exposure Task take?
About 6 to 8 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Exposure Effect, Exposure Slope, Liking, Never Shown, Liking, Shown Once, Liking, Shown Twice, Liking, Shown 5 Times, Liking, Shown 10 Times, Liking, Shown 25 Times, Recognition Hits, Recognition False Alarms, Effect, Not Recognized, Attention Checks Passed, False Presses, Median Rating Time, Ratings Given, Longest Run of One Rating, Anticipations and Earlier Sessions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Mere Exposure Task used in research?
100 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 19% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 216 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Mere Exposure Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 1 registered clinical study uses it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Shape on screen (ms) (500 to 2,000). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.