Stress‐testing the affect misattribution procedure: Heterogeneous control of affect misattribution procedure effects under incentives

Abstract

The affect misattribution procedure (AMP) is widely used to measure sensitive attitudes towards classes of stimuli, by estimating the effect that affectively charged prime images have on subsequent judgements of neutral target images. We test its resistance to efforts to conceal one's attitudes, by replicating the standard AMP design while offering small incentives to conceal attitudes towards the prime images. We find that although the average AMP effect remains positive, it decreases significantly in magnitude. Moreover, this reduction in the mean AMP effect under incentives masks large heterogeneity: one subset of individuals continues to experience the 'full' AMP effect, while another reduces their effect to approximately zero. The AMP thus appears to be resistant to efforts to conceal one's attitudes for some individuals but is highly controllable for others. We further find that those individuals with high self-reported effort to avoid the influence of the prime are more often able to eliminate their AMP effect. We conclude by discussing possible mechanisms.

Updating implicit impressions: New evidence on intentionality and the affect misattribution procedure.

“…In light of the findings of Hazlett and Berinsky (2018), it is possible that the extreme manipulations of person impressions in the current work (with Bob/Francis portrayed as very strongly positive or negative at each point in time) might have created a heightened awareness in participants of the possibility of being biased by the primes, and perhaps increased their motivation to avoid such influence so as to properly complete the task. If the ability of participants to successfully avoid any influence of the primes when motivated to do so takes a bimodal distribution, with most people either very skilled or very unskilled, then their ultimate scores on the AMP would be bimodal as well.…”

“…A recent investigation by Hazlett and Berinsky (2018) offers evidence of one potential source of bimodality on the AMP. Participants in that study were placed in one of several conditions that ranged in the degree to which participants were incentivized to avoid showing any influence of the primes on their responses on the AMP, and then completed an AMP that used universally pleasant or unpleasant stimuli as primes.…”

“…Indeed, it could be that participants exhibiting a pattern of universal responses are still nonetheless implicit, just as it could be that implicit responses exhibiting a unimodal pattern could nonetheless be the result of a subset of intentional responders. Other explanations for this pattern, for example, are (a) that the underlying distribution of participant impressions in these learning paradigms are genuinely bimodal, with most participants adopting generally extreme or mild impressions with few in between, and/or (b) that participant ability to prevent misattribution in-line with the task instructions takes a bimodal distribution (Hazlett & Berinsky, 2018), with most participants being either poor at control (producing extreme proportions) or adept at it (producing proportions near chance level at .5). However, the possibility that a pronounced second mode near the boundary reflects a mix of intentional and unintentional responding remains, and raises important questions about the AMP that warrant empirical investigation.…”

An indirect measure of discrete emotions.

“…Although the AMP offers several advantages to existing measures used to approximate emotional experiences, the AMP may also face unique limitations. One concern that researchers have raised is whether responses on the AMP are driven controlled rather than automatic processes (Bar-Anan & Nosek, 2012; Hazlett & Berinsky, 2018; Teige-Mocigemba, Penzl, Becker, Henn, & Klauer, 2015). For example, researchers have found that sufficiently motivated participants may modify their responses on a way that reduces priming effects on the AMP (Hazlett & Berinsky, 2018; Teige-Mocigemba et al, 2015).…”

Sweet Revenge Feels Less Bitter: Spontaneous Affective Reactions After Revenge Taking

“…In a subsequent “punishment phase,” participants could decide which player should receive a noise blast; its delivery was however determined by the computer, which allowed blasting of both players. Affective reactions after each noise punishment were measured with the affect misattribution procedure (AMP; Payne et al, 2005), which provides a composite measure of momentary affects that is fairly robust against strategic deliberations (Deutsch & Gawronski, 2009; Eder & Deutsch, 2015; Hazlett & Berinsky, 2018; for a review, see Payne & Lundberg, 2014). If sweet feelings dominate following revenge, AMP positivity scores should be larger following punishments of provoking compared to nonprovoking players.…”