At the Boundaries of Misattribution
Does Positivity Influence Judgments of Familiarity in the Affect Misattribution Procedure?
Abstract
Abstract. Priming effects in the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) have been explained by a misattribution of prime-related affect to neutral targets. However, the measure has been criticized for being susceptible to intentional use of prime-features in judgments of the targets. To isolate the contribution of unintentional processes, the present research expanded on the finding that positive affect can be misattributed to familiarity (i.e., positivity-familiarity effect). To the extent that prime-valence is deemed irrelevant for judgments of target-familiarity, positivity-familiarity effects in the AMP could potentially rule out intentional use of the primes. Seven experiments collectively suggest that prime-valence influences judgments of target-familiarity in the AMP, but only when the task context does not suggest a normatively accurate response to the familiarity-judgment task. Relations of positivity-familiarity effects to self-reported use of prime-valence revealed mixed results regarding the role of intentional processes. Implications for the AMP and misattribution effects are discussed.
References
2012). Reporting intentional rating of the primes predicts priming effects in the affective misattribution procedure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1194–1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212446835
(2012). The affect misattribution procedure: Hot or not? Emotion, 12, 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026907
(2009). Creating illusions of past encounter through brief exposure. Psychological Science, 20, 534–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02337.x
(2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
(2012). Sequential priming measures of implicit social cognition: A meta-analysis of associations with behaviors and explicit attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 330–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440047
(2005). Is positivity a cue or a response option? Warm glow vs. evaluative matching in the familiarity for attractive and not-so-attractive faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.08.004
(2013). Go with your gut! Effects in the affect misattribution procedure become stronger when participants are encouraged to rely on their gut feelings. Social Psychology, 44, 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000115
(2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014211
(2009). When the method makes a difference: Antagonistic effects on “automatic evaluations” as a function of task characteristics of the measure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.001
(2009). Fast and fragile: A new look at the automaticity of negation processing. Experimental Psychology, 56, 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.6.434
(2007). “Remembering” emotional words is based on response bias, not recollection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 423–429. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194083
(2015). Watch the target! Effects in the affective misattribution procedure become weaker (but not eliminated) when participants are motivated to provide accurate responses to the target. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1442. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2015.01442
(2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
(2004). Positivity can cue familiarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262856
(2010). Attentional influences on affective priming: Does categorization influence spontaneous evaluations of multiply categorizable objects? Cognition and Emotion, 24, 1008–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903112712
(2014).
(Implicit measures in social and personality psychology . In H. T. ReisC. M. JuddEds., Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 283–310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.2014). What drives priming effects in the affect misattribution procedure? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213502548
(2015). Prevention of intention invention in the affect misattribution procedure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614543029
(2011). An inkblot for sexual preference: A semantic variant of the affect misattribution procedure. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.508260
(2008). The international affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. Gainesville, FL: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
(2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406921
(2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1035
(1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.723
(1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
(2011). There is a fire burning in my heart: The role of causal attribution in affect transfer. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003680061
(2003). Relations between implicit measures of prejudice: What are we measuring? Psychological Science, 14, 636–639. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1477.x
(1984). Two component models of social desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
(2013). Intention invention and the affect misattribution procedure: Reply to Bar-Anan and Nosek (2012). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212475225
(2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277
(2010). A process model of affect misattribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1397–1408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210383440
(2014). The affect misattribution procedure: Ten years of evidence on reliability, validity, and mechanisms. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 672–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12148
(2005). Affective modulation of recognition bias. Emotion, 5, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.3.309
(2008). How (and why) emotion enhances the subjective sense of recollection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00565.x
(2012). An inkblot for the implicit assessment of personality: The semantic misattribution procedure. European Journal of Personality, 26, 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1861
(2017). The affect misattribution procedure: In search of prejudice effects. Experimental Psychology, 64, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000364
(2016). Controlling the “uncontrollable”: Faking effects on the affect misattribution procedure. Cognition and Emotion, 30, 1470–1484. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1070793
(2016).
(A look inside the toolbox: Measurement procedures in implicit social cognition . In F. T. L. LeongD. BartramF. M. CheungK. F. GeisingerD. IliescuEds., The ITC international handbook of testing and assessment (pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.2002). The attribution of perceptual fluency in recognition memory: The role of expectation. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00022-0
(2003).
(The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment . In J. MuschK. C. KlauerEds., The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
(