Intention Invention and the Affect Misattribution Procedure: Reply to Bar-Anan and Nosek (2012)

B. Keith Payne, Jazmin Brown-Iannuzzi, Melissa Burkley, Nathan L. Arbuckle, Erin Cooley, C. Daryl Cameron, Kristjen B. Lundberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A recent study of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP) found that participants who retrospectively reported that they intentionally rated the primes showed larger effect sizes and higher reliability. The study concluded that the AMP's validity depends on intentionally rating the primes. We evaluated this conclusion in three experiments. First, larger effect sizes and higher reliability were associated with (incoherent) retrospective reports of both (a) intentionally rating the primes and (b) being unintentionally influenced by the primes. A second experiment manipulated intentions to rate the primes versus targets and found that this manipulation produced systematically different effects. Experiment 3 found that giving participants an option to "pass" when they felt they were influenced by primes did not reduce priming. Experimental manipulations, rather than retrospective self-reports, suggested that participants make post hoc confabulations to explain their responses. There was no evidence that validity in the AMP depends on intentionally rating primes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)375-386
Number of pages12
JournalPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Volume39
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2013

Fingerprint

Adenosine Monophosphate
Self Report

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Payne, B. Keith ; Brown-Iannuzzi, Jazmin ; Burkley, Melissa ; Arbuckle, Nathan L. ; Cooley, Erin ; Cameron, C. Daryl ; Lundberg, Kristjen B. / Intention Invention and the Affect Misattribution Procedure : Reply to Bar-Anan and Nosek (2012). In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2013 ; Vol. 39, No. 3. pp. 375-386.
@article{244bd0ec61024bc9ada9773513947dc7,
title = "Intention Invention and the Affect Misattribution Procedure: Reply to Bar-Anan and Nosek (2012)",
abstract = "A recent study of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP) found that participants who retrospectively reported that they intentionally rated the primes showed larger effect sizes and higher reliability. The study concluded that the AMP's validity depends on intentionally rating the primes. We evaluated this conclusion in three experiments. First, larger effect sizes and higher reliability were associated with (incoherent) retrospective reports of both (a) intentionally rating the primes and (b) being unintentionally influenced by the primes. A second experiment manipulated intentions to rate the primes versus targets and found that this manipulation produced systematically different effects. Experiment 3 found that giving participants an option to {"}pass{"} when they felt they were influenced by primes did not reduce priming. Experimental manipulations, rather than retrospective self-reports, suggested that participants make post hoc confabulations to explain their responses. There was no evidence that validity in the AMP depends on intentionally rating primes.",
author = "Payne, {B. Keith} and Jazmin Brown-Iannuzzi and Melissa Burkley and Arbuckle, {Nathan L.} and Erin Cooley and Cameron, {C. Daryl} and Lundberg, {Kristjen B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0146167212475225",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "375--386",
journal = "Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin",
issn = "0146-1672",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Intention Invention and the Affect Misattribution Procedure : Reply to Bar-Anan and Nosek (2012). / Payne, B. Keith; Brown-Iannuzzi, Jazmin; Burkley, Melissa; Arbuckle, Nathan L.; Cooley, Erin; Cameron, C. Daryl; Lundberg, Kristjen B.

In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 3, 01.03.2013, p. 375-386.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intention Invention and the Affect Misattribution Procedure

T2 - Reply to Bar-Anan and Nosek (2012)

AU - Payne, B. Keith

AU - Brown-Iannuzzi, Jazmin

AU - Burkley, Melissa

AU - Arbuckle, Nathan L.

AU - Cooley, Erin

AU - Cameron, C. Daryl

AU - Lundberg, Kristjen B.

PY - 2013/3/1

Y1 - 2013/3/1

N2 - A recent study of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP) found that participants who retrospectively reported that they intentionally rated the primes showed larger effect sizes and higher reliability. The study concluded that the AMP's validity depends on intentionally rating the primes. We evaluated this conclusion in three experiments. First, larger effect sizes and higher reliability were associated with (incoherent) retrospective reports of both (a) intentionally rating the primes and (b) being unintentionally influenced by the primes. A second experiment manipulated intentions to rate the primes versus targets and found that this manipulation produced systematically different effects. Experiment 3 found that giving participants an option to "pass" when they felt they were influenced by primes did not reduce priming. Experimental manipulations, rather than retrospective self-reports, suggested that participants make post hoc confabulations to explain their responses. There was no evidence that validity in the AMP depends on intentionally rating primes.

AB - A recent study of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP) found that participants who retrospectively reported that they intentionally rated the primes showed larger effect sizes and higher reliability. The study concluded that the AMP's validity depends on intentionally rating the primes. We evaluated this conclusion in three experiments. First, larger effect sizes and higher reliability were associated with (incoherent) retrospective reports of both (a) intentionally rating the primes and (b) being unintentionally influenced by the primes. A second experiment manipulated intentions to rate the primes versus targets and found that this manipulation produced systematically different effects. Experiment 3 found that giving participants an option to "pass" when they felt they were influenced by primes did not reduce priming. Experimental manipulations, rather than retrospective self-reports, suggested that participants make post hoc confabulations to explain their responses. There was no evidence that validity in the AMP depends on intentionally rating primes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873734371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873734371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0146167212475225

DO - 10.1177/0146167212475225

M3 - Article

C2 - 23401479

AN - SCOPUS:84873734371

VL - 39

SP - 375

EP - 386

JO - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

JF - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SN - 0146-1672

IS - 3

ER -