How the task works
Participants briefly see a meaningful image and then an ambiguous symbol, such as an unfamiliar Chinese character. They rate how pleasant the symbol looks and are told to ignore the image. People's ratings tend to shift in line with their reaction to the image, as though the feeling has spilled over onto the symbol.
Why researchers use it
Developers argued that the task captures attitudes people may not report directly, even when warned about the influence. It is simple to administer, and early studies linked it with attitudes toward political candidates and with behaviours such as drinking.
The debate over awareness
Critics have reported that much of the effect comes from participants who say they intentionally rated the image instead of the symbol. This raises the question of whether the task measures automatic reactions at all. Others respond that such reports may be inferred after the fact. Like other indirect measures, it is better suited to group comparisons than to assessing any one person.
Further reading
- Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277-293.
- Bar-Anan, Y., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Reporting intentional rating of the primes predicts priming effects in the Affective Misattribution Procedure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1194-1208.