Social Cognition
Affect Misattribution Task
Also called: affect misattribution procedure, AMP, affective misattribution procedure
Measure how the feeling a face leaves carries over to an unfamiliar drawing: participants judge drawings as more or less pleasant after a brief happy face, sad face or gray square.
4-6 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 88
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 6
What it measures
Measures how the feeling left by a brief picture carries over to judgments of an unfamiliar drawing. A happy face, a sad face or a gray square flashes before each drawing, and participants judge whether the drawing is more or less pleasant than average.
Constructs
- Implicit evaluation
- Affective priming
- Attitudes
Research uses
- Attitude and implicit social cognition research at the group level
- Affect and emotion research
- Method studies of implicit measures
How the paradigm works
The Affect Misattribution Task measures how the feeling a brief picture leaves carries over to judgments of something unfamiliar. On each trial a prime flashes for 75 ms: a happy face, a sad face or a gray square. After a 125 ms blank, a glyph, a small unfamiliar drawing, flashes for 100 ms, and a black and white noise mask covers it until the participant judges the glyph more pleasant or less pleasant than average with the F or J key. Participants are told that the faces can sway their judgments and to try not to let them.
More about the paradigm
The task follows Payne, Cheng, Govorun and Stewart (2005): the same timing, a gray square as the neutral prime, and a warning against bias, which did not reduce the effect in their studies. A third of the trials follow each kind of prime, 72 as standard (36 in the settings), each with a new glyph, in an order drawn from the session's seed. The source used photographs from a licensed picture set as primes and Chinese pictographs as targets, which people who read Chinese or Japanese can read. Here the primes are five happy and five sad Noto Emoji faces, and the targets are glyphs drawn by code that belong to no script, so the task runs in every language the app supports. Williams, Steele and Lipman (2016) found the effect after happy against sad faces, with ink blots as targets. Six practice trials, each followed by the judgment it recorded, come first. Which key means pleasant is drawn from the seed.
The main score is the share of pleasant judgments after happy faces minus the share after sad faces. The task also reports the share after each kind of prime and the shift after happy and after sad faces from the gray square. Judgments under 100 ms from the mask, and trials whose face or glyph ran more than one screen frame off its time, are left out. Payne and colleagues reported an average effect size of d = 1.25 and an average internal consistency of .88 across six experiments with photographs and pictographs; faces and drawn glyphs may give effects of a different size. An AMP score is a research measure for group comparisons and says little about one person. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- AMP Effect%
- Share of glyphs judged pleasant after happy faces minus the share after sad faces.
- Positive values mean the faces' feeling carried over to the glyphs; not better or worse
- Pleasant After Happy Faces%
- Share of glyphs judged pleasant after a happy face.
- Informational
- Pleasant After the Gray Square%
- Share of glyphs judged pleasant after the gray square, the neutral prime.
- Informational
- Pleasant After Sad Faces%
- Share of glyphs judged pleasant after a sad face.
- Informational
- Shift After Happy Faces%
- Share judged pleasant after happy faces minus the share after the gray square.
- Positive values mean happy faces raised pleasant judgments
- Shift After Sad Faces%
- Share judged pleasant after sad faces minus the share after the gray square.
- Negative values mean sad faces lowered pleasant judgments
- Pleasant Judgments%
- Share of all usable glyphs judged pleasant, whatever the prime.
- Informational; values near 0 or 1 leave little room for an effect
- Median Judgment Timems
- Median time from the mask to the key press, over usable trials.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Judgments under 100 ms from the mask, which are left out.
- Quality check
- Early Pressescount
- Keys pressed before the mask appeared, which do not answer.
- Quality check
- Trials Off Timingcount
- Trials left out because the face or the glyph ran more than one screen frame off its planned time.
- Quality check
- Scored Trialstrials
- Trials with a usable judgment.
- Quality check
- Planned Trialstrials
- Trials the scored part planned.
- Informational
- Total Trialstrials
- Trials of the scored part completed in the run.
- Under 90% of the planned trials is invalid
Use and evidence
88 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 21% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 198 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 24 |
| 2024 | 23 |
| 2023 | 13 |
| 2022 | 17 |
| 2021 | 11 |
| 2020 | 17 |
| 2019 | 23 |
| 2018 | 26 |
| 2017 | 24 |
| 2016 | 22 |
| 2015 | 19 |
| 2014 | 19 |
| 2013 | 15 |
| 2012 | 21 |
| 2011 | 15 |
| 2010 | 9 |
| 2009 | 11 |
| 2008 | 6 |
| 2007 | 4 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 5
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 61
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 6
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Primes
- 5 happy and 5 sad Noto Emoji faces, and a gray square as the neutral prime. A third of the trials follow each kind.
- Targets
- Glyphs drawn by code for this task, one connected figure of 5 to 7 black strokes each, belonging to no script. Every trial shows a new glyph, dealt at random in each session.
- One trial
- A 500 ms blank, the prime for 75 ms, a 125 ms blank, the glyph for 100 ms, then a black and white noise mask until the answer. Each display switches on a screen frame, and its measured time is saved.
- Answer
- F or J for more pleasant or less pleasant than average, with no time limit. Which key means pleasant is drawn from the session's seed.
- Trials
- 72 (standard; 36 or 72) in a seeded order with no more than 3 after one kind of prime in a row and never one face twice in a row.
- Instructions
- Judge only the glyph, go with a first impression, and try not to let the face sway the judgment.
- Practice
- 6 trials with 6 glyphs outside the set, each followed by the judgment it recorded.
- Scoring
- Share judged pleasant after happy faces minus after sad faces. Judgments under 100 ms from the mask and trials with a display more than one frame off its time are left out.
Payne and colleagues (2005) used photographs and Chinese pictographs. Here faces and drawn glyphs are used, so the task runs in every language and effects may differ in size from theirs.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: affect_misattribution_trial from the scored run, each glyph judged pleasant or unpleasant, with no correct answer and timed from the mask. The same judgment on every glyph invalidates, as do fewer than 90% of the planned trials. Responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule. Over 20% of trials with the face or the glyph more than one frame off its time, or under 10% or over 90% pleasant judgments, flag the session for review.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Payne and colleagues (2005) removed participants who gave the same response to every glyph, because their judgments did not depend on the trials. The score compares shares across kinds of prime, so it needs most of the trials and displays that kept their 75 ms and 100 ms timing; the limits for those are ConductScience choices. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Scored trials | 72 (standard) | 36, 72 (standard) |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Affect Misattribution Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Payne, Cheng, Govorun & Stewart, 2005), with the standard settings (scored trials: 72). The main score was AMP effect (share of glyphs judged pleasant after happy faces minus the share after sad faces).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- 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(3), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277
- Williams, A., Steele, J. R., & Lipman, C. (2016). Assessing children's implicit attitudes using the affect misattribution procedure. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(3), 505-525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2015.1061527Happy against sad faces as primes, and targets other than pictographs.
Source papers
- Payne BK, Cheng CM, Govorun O, Stewart BD (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3):277-293.Paradigm source, Adults
- No normative data for this task.Paradigm source, N/A
Questions
How long does the Affect Misattribution Task take?
About 4 to 6 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
AMP Effect, Pleasant After Happy Faces, Pleasant After the Gray Square, Pleasant After Sad Faces, Shift After Happy Faces, Shift After Sad Faces, Pleasant Judgments, Median Judgment Time, Anticipations, Early Presses, Trials Off Timing, Scored Trials, Planned Trials and Total Trials. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Affect Misattribution Task used in research?
88 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 21% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 198 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Affect Misattribution Task have?
In the published research, 5 papers report its test-retest reliability and 6 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Scored trials (36, 72 (standard)). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.