Social Cognition
Everyday Intent Task
Also called: hostile attribution bias task, ambiguous provocation task, attribution of hostile intent
Measure how people explain ambiguous acts: participants read everyday mishaps and choose between a hostile explanation and a harmless one.
4-6 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 275
- Evidence grade
- B
- Registered clinical studies
- 10
A coworker returns a shared book. Your bookmark is gone.
Why did this happen?
They wanted you to lose your place.They did not notice it fall out.What it measures
Measures how often people choose a hostile explanation for an ambiguous act. Participants read short scenes about everyday mishaps and choose the explanation that seems more likely. The score describes choices on these scenes.
Constructs
- Hostile attribution bias
- Interpretation of ambiguous intent
- Social cognition
Research uses
- Attribution bias research
- Aggression research
- Social interpretation studies
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The Everyday Intent Task measures how often ambiguous acts receive a hostile explanation. Hostile attribution research asks why another person caused an unpleasant outcome when their intent is unclear. Here, participants read 16 original scenes about mild everyday inconveniences and choose the explanation that seems more likely. One explanation suggests hostile intent; the other suggests an accident or oversight. Neither is scored as right or wrong.
More about the paradigm
Each scene appears once, with the two explanations placed first equally often. The seed selects and orders the scenes. A setting shortens the session to 8 scenes. Two separate practice scenes confirm the chosen answer without favoring either explanation. The scene stays visible and there is no time limit. Scenes and choices follow the session language in all eight languages.
The primary score is the percentage of answered scenes on which the hostile explanation was chosen. Counts, completion and median response time are also reported. Response time includes reading and choosing; compare times within one device type. Fewer than 75% of the planned scenes answered invalidates the run. The score describes a tendency on these scenes, not aggression, social skill or a diagnosis.
Scores
- Hostile Explanations%
- Hostile explanations as a percent of recognized answers.
- Higher means more hostile interpretations of these scenes
- Benign Explanations%
- Benign explanations as a percent of recognized answers.
- Higher means more benign interpretations of these scenes
- Hostile Choicescount
- Number of hostile explanations selected.
- Descriptive
- Benign Choicescount
- Number of benign explanations selected.
- Descriptive
- Median Response Timems
- Median time to read and choose, excluding answers under 100 ms.
- Compare within one device type
- Scenes Answeredcount
- Scenes with a recognized answer.
- Completion
- Scenes Setcount
- Scenes planned for the session.
- Informational
- Answer Rate%
- Answered scenes as a percent of those planned.
- Below 75% invalidates
- Anticipationscount
- Answers under 100 ms.
- Lower supports interpretation
Use and evidence
275 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 106 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 94 |
| 2024 | 57 |
| 2023 | 47 |
| 2022 | 44 |
| 2021 | 33 |
| 2020 | 62 |
| 2019 | 50 |
| 2018 | 47 |
| 2017 | 35 |
| 2016 | 41 |
| 2015 | 31 |
| 2014 | 41 |
| 2013 | 35 |
| 2012 | 28 |
| 2011 | 28 |
| 2010 | 23 |
| 2009 | 25 |
| 2008 | 26 |
| 2007 | 19 |
| 2006 | 20 |
| 2005 | 17 |
| 2004 | 11 |
| 2003 | 17 |
| 2002 | 8 |
| 2001 | 8 |
| 2000 | 8 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade B
At least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 10
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 57
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 10
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: many papers measure it with questionnaires.
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 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Scenes
- 16 original scenes about mild everyday inconveniences. Each has a hostile explanation and a benign explanation, with neither marked correct.
- Session
- 16 scenes by default, or 8 as a setting. The seed selects and orders scenes without repetition and puts each explanation first equally often.
- Answer
- The scene stays on screen while the participant chooses one of two explanations. There is no time limit; response time includes reading and choosing.
- Practice
- 2 separate scenes. Feedback confirms the selected explanation and explains that there is no right answer. Test scenes have no feedback.
- Timing
- A 500 ms lead-in and a 300 ms gap after each choice. These are fixed display pauses, not response deadlines.
- Languages
- Scenes and answer choices are written in English, Italian, German, Spanish, French, Japanese, Portuguese and Chinese.
The score describes interpretations of these scenes. It does not measure a person's aggression or social skill. No published items, cutoffs or norms are used; compare groups using the same language and settings.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: everyday_intent_choice from the most complete run. Neither explanation is correct, so accuracy and repeated explanations are not checked. Fewer than 75% of the planned scenes answered invalidates; other incomplete runs are flagged. Answers under 200 ms on at least half of 4 or more answers invalidate. A hidden tab is flagged for review.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Choosing hostile or benign explanations consistently is the tendency measured, so neither is an error. The 75% completion threshold is a ConductScience choice. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Scenes | 16 scenes (standard) | 8 scenes, 16 scenes (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
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. 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.
Included in these batteries
Each battery runs this test with others in a fixed order, with standard settings.
- Social Cognition Battery4 tests, 23 minutes per participant
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Everyday Intent Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Dodge KA, 1980; Lyu Y, Su Z, Neumann D, Meidenbauer KL, Leong YC, 2024), with the standard settings (scenes: 16 scenes). The main score was hostile explanations (hostile explanations as a percent of recognized answers).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51(1), 162-170. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129603Hostile and benign interpretations of ambiguous acts; our scenes and forced-choice format are original.
- Lyu, Y., Su, Z., Neumann, D., Meidenbauer, K. L., & Leong, Y. C. (2024). Hostile attribution bias shapes neural synchrony in the left ventromedial prefrontal cortex during ambiguous social narratives. The Journal of Neuroscience, e1252232024. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1252-23.2024Contemporary use of attribution judgments on social narratives; our task uses written scenes and choices rather than audio and ratings.
Source papers
- Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51(1), 162-170.Paradigm source, Children in the source study
Questions
How long does the Everyday Intent Task take?
About 4 to 6 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Hostile Explanations, Benign Explanations, Hostile Choices, Benign Choices, Median Response Time, Scenes Answered, Scenes Set, Answer Rate and Anticipations. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Everyday Intent Task used in research?
275 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 106 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Everyday Intent Task have?
In the published research, 10 papers report its test-retest reliability and 10 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade B in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Scenes (8 scenes, 16 scenes (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, with its words in the same language. 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.