Study 007 / memory
Compare some numbers, then make a small choice.
This voluntary demonstration changes how information is presented. Some details, including any simulated claims, are explained after the final step. You can reveal them or leave at any time.
Your responses stay in this browser tab. No research data is submitted.
Read the mechanism firstStudy 007 / Algorithmic repetition
01 / Observation
A name can become familiar through repeated appearances beside unrelated tasks.
02 / Hypothesis
Repeated exposure may influence later recognition or preference, but the two should be measured separately.
03 / Mechanism
Exposure and familiarity are candidate contributors. A short task cannot establish how an actual recommender system shapes a person over time.
04 / Experiment
Complete four simple comparisons. A fictional label repeats in the surrounding display. Choose a preferred label before answering a separate familiarity question. Label order varies between visits and stays fixed for both questions and replay. Replay removes the repeated label.
05 / Result
The reveal reconstructs the exposures and preserves the preference submitted before the familiarity question, including an incomplete final response. There is no personalised ranking or inferred psychological profile.
06 / Alternative explanations
The sound of a name, deliberate memorisation, position, guessing the hypothesis, or preference formed before the task.
07 / Real-world use
Recommendation feeds, retargeting, repeated packaging, jingles, and recurring names in media.
08 / Ethical dimension
Repetition can help learning or crowd out alternatives. The frequency, purpose, and ability to leave affect the person’s agency.
09 / Countermeasure
Distinguish “I recognise it” from “it meets my criteria”. Seek alternatives outside the repeated stream.
Short summaries in our own words: what the research found, why it belongs here, and where its conclusions stop. These papers provide background; they do not report results from your visit.
Primary research
Zajonc’s foundational work examined whether repeated encounters could make a stimulus more positively evaluated. It motivates the repeated name in this task, including the possibility of liking without an elaborate reason. Exposure is one candidate influence; a single familiar name does not demonstrate a newly created preference.
Meta-analysis
This review found that the relationship between repetition and liking was not simply an unlimited upward trend. Across the analysed studies it showed a curved pattern, with differences between conditions. That is why the reveal keeps familiarity and preference separate, and why “show it more” is not a universal rule.
A demonstration can make a mechanism inspectable. One person’s response, or a replay after disclosure, cannot identify a causal effect or establish nonconscious influence.