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.
Highlights
To overcome the well-known limits of self-reports (e.g., Paulhus, 1984; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), attitude researchers have devoted considerable efforts to develop alternative measurement instruments
We conducted separate within-subjects ANOVAs comparing each level of Prime Valence within the valence-judgment condition and the familiarity-judgment condition, respectively
General Discussion The aim of the current research was to investigate whether misattribution of valence to familiarity could be used to isolate the contribution of unintentional processes in the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP)
Summary
To overcome the well-known limits of self-reports (e.g., Paulhus, 1984; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), attitude researchers have devoted considerable efforts to develop alternative measurement instruments. In the original presentation of the measure, Payne et al (2005) hypothesized that priming effects in the AMP are driven by a misattribution of the affective state elicited by the prime to the neutral target According to this interpretation, participants fail to identify the actual source of their affective reaction (i.e., the prime), which is mistakenly attributed to the target. Participants fail to identify the actual source of their affective reaction (i.e., the prime), which is mistakenly attributed to the target This misattribution effect is assumed to emerge despite participants’ intention not to use features of the primes in evaluating the targets (Payne et al, 2005), allowing a classification of AMP effects as unintentional, fulfilling one of the criteria of implicitness (see De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
