Social Cognition
Extrinsic Affective Simon Task
Also called: EAST
Measure how readily flower and insect names are answered with a key that means good or bad: white words are sorted by meaning and colored words by color, scored as a difference in response time.
5-6 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. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 7
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how readily flower and insect names are answered with a key that means good or bad. White words are sorted as good or bad, which gives the two keys their meaning, and blue or green words are sorted by color alone. The main score is the difference in response time between colored words whose key's meaning fits them and words whose key's meaning conflicts.
Constructs
- Implicit evaluation
- Attitudes
- Stimulus-response compatibility
Research uses
- Social cognition and attitude research at the group level
- Evaluations of single concepts, scored one at a time
- Method studies of implicit measures
How the paradigm works
The Extrinsic Affective Simon Task measures how readily flower and insect names are answered with a key that has come to mean good or bad. It follows De Houwer (2003). White words, eight pleasant and eight unpleasant, are sorted by their meaning with E and I, so one key comes to mean good and the other bad. Flower and insect names in blue or green are sorted by their color alone, so each is answered with the good key on half its trials and with the bad key on the other half, and its meaning plays no part in the answer. A wrong key shows a red X until the right key is pressed, a 500 ms blank follows each right key, and a line at the bottom of the panel shows each key's meaning and color. Which key is good, and which color shares it, are drawn from the session's seed.
More about the paradigm
The words are the Implicit Association Test's English lists, so a study can compare the two tests on the same words: the Glasgow Norms words of highest and lowest valence, and flower and insect names written by ConductCognition. They are English in every session. Two practice parts of 16 words come first, white words alone and colored words alone, then three test parts of 48 words, each with every white word once and every colored word once in each color, in an order with no more than four answers in a row on one key.
The main score, the EAST effect, is the mean response time on colored words whose key's meaning conflicts with them (flowers on the bad key, insects on the good key) minus the mean on words whose key's meaning fits, averaged over flowers and insects. It uses right first keys only, with times under 300 ms set to 300 ms, as Huijding and de Jong (2005) did after De Houwer (2003), and times over 3,000 ms left out. The task also reports the score of each concept alone, flowers and insects, and the same comparisons in wrong first keys, where Huijding and de Jong found the effects most clearly in a picture version of the task. Sessions with more than 30% wrong first keys are flagged, as they set such participants aside. Answers whose first key comes under 100 ms are counted as anticipations. De Houwer and De Bruycker (2007) found low split-half reliability for EAST scores and, unlike IAT scores, no clear relation to self-reported attitudes, so an EAST effect is a research measure for group comparisons and says little about one person. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- EAST Effectms
- Mean time on colored words whose key's meaning conflicts with them (flowers on the bad key, insects on the good key) minus the mean on those whose key's meaning fits, averaged over flowers and insects.
- Positive values mean faster answers when flowers shared the good key and insects the bad key; not better or worse
- Flower Scorems
- Mean time on flower names answered with the bad key minus those answered with the good key.
- Positive values mean flower names were answered faster with the good key
- Insect Scorems
- Mean time on insect names answered with the bad key minus those answered with the good key.
- Positive values mean insect names were answered faster with the good key
- EAST Error Effect%
- Share of wrong first keys on colored words whose key's meaning conflicts with them minus the share on those whose key's meaning fits, averaged over flowers and insects.
- Positive values mean more errors when the key's meaning conflicted
- Flower Error Score%
- Share of wrong first keys on flower names with the bad key minus the share with the good key.
- Positive values mean more errors when flower names needed the bad key
- Insect Error Score%
- Share of wrong first keys on insect names with the bad key minus the share with the good key.
- Positive values mean more errors when insect names needed the bad key
- Fitting Key Timems
- Mean time on flower names with the good key and insect names with the bad key, averaged over the two.
- Lower is faster
- Conflicting Key Timems
- Mean time on flower names with the bad key and insect names with the good key, averaged over the two.
- Lower is faster
- Error Rate%
- Share of test words whose first key was wrong.
- Above 30% is flagged for review
- Colored Word Errors%
- Share of colored test words whose first key was wrong.
- Lower is better
- White Word Errors%
- Share of white test words whose first key was wrong.
- Lower is better
- Anticipationscount
- Test words whose first key came under 100 ms after the word appeared.
- Quality check
- Good Key Left0/1
- 1 when E, on the left, was the good key, 0 when I was, drawn from the session's seed.
- Informational
- Blue On Good Key0/1
- 1 when blue words shared the good key, 0 when green words did, drawn from the session's seed.
- Informational
- Planned Test Trialstrials
- Test trials in three parts of 48.
- Informational
- Total Test Trialstrials
- Test trials in the scored run.
- Fewer than planned is flagged for review
Use and evidence
7 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract. That ranks it 463 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 0 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 2023 | 2 |
| 2022 | 4 |
| 2021 | 0 |
| 2020 | 2 |
| 2019 | 2 |
| 2018 | 1 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2014 | 4 |
| 2013 | 3 |
| 2012 | 2 |
| 2011 | 2 |
| 2010 | 3 |
| 2009 | 4 |
| 2008 | 5 |
| 2007 | 18 |
| 2006 | 8 |
| 2005 | 6 |
| 2004 | 6 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 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
- 3
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 14
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
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 0.22.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Trials
- A word in the middle of the panel until the right key, E on the left or I on the right. White words are sorted as good or bad, blue and green words by their color alone.
- Words
- The Implicit Association Test's English lists: 8 pleasant and 8 unpleasant words in white, and 8 flower and 8 insect names in color. The words are English in every session.
- Keys
- Which key is good, and whether blue or green shares it, are drawn from the session's seed. A line at the bottom of the panel shows each key's meaning and color.
- Practice
- 16 white words alone, then 16 colored words alone, half of each kind in blue and half in green.
- Test
- 3 parts of 48 words: every white word once and every colored word once in each color, with no more than 4 answers in a row on one key.
- Feedback
- A wrong key shows a red X until the right key, and 500 ms pass before the next word.
- Scoring
- Right first keys only, with times under 300 ms set to 300 ms and times over 3,000 ms left out. The EAST effect is the mean on colored words whose key's meaning conflicts with them minus the mean on those whose key's meaning fits.
The trial is the Implicit Association Test's, with a red X until the right key, and a line at the bottom of the panel shows what each key means and which color shares it, because the task runs without an experimenter. The words are the Implicit Association Test's, so the two tests can be compared on the same items. De Houwer and De Bruycker (2007) found low split-half reliability for EAST scores, so compare groups, not single people.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: every extrinsic_affective_simon_trial of the scored run, E or I for a white word's meaning or a colored word's color (chance 50%, each key is right on half the trials of every part), correctness from the first key pressed. Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One key on 90% of first keys invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. More than 30% wrong first keys, a run short of its planned trials, or a session run in a language other than English is flagged for review. There is no response window, so nothing is missed. Responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Huijding and de Jong (2005) set aside participants with more than 30% errors, who may not have understood the task. The word lists are English. A session run in another language shows English words to a participant who may not read English fluently, so it is flagged for review.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
This test runs with fixed settings.
Need a different version of this test?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Instructions and screens: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. Words and sentences: English.
- 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 Extrinsic Affective Simon Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; De Houwer, 2003). The main score was EAST effect (mean time on colored words whose key's meaning conflicts with them (flowers on the bad key, insects on the good key) minus the mean on those whose key's meaning fits, averaged over flowers and insects).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- De Houwer, J. (2003). The Extrinsic Affective Simon Task. Experimental Psychology, 50(2), 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1026//1618-3169.50.2.77The task: white words sorted by valence give the keys a meaning, colored words are sorted by color, and answers are better when a word's valence matches its key's.
- Huijding, J., & de Jong, P. J. (2005). A modified Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST) to assess the affective value of pictorial stimuli: No influence of age and educational level. Psychologica Belgica, 45(4), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-45-4-241A score for each concept from right answers, times under 300 ms recoded to 300 ms, effects clearest in errors, and participants with more than 30% errors set aside.
- De Houwer, J., & De Bruycker, E. (2007). The implicit association test outperforms the extrinsic affective Simon task as an implicit measure of inter-individual differences in attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X130346Low split-half reliability for EAST scores, and no clear relation to self-reported attitudes.
Source papers
- De Houwer J (2003). The Extrinsic Affective Simon Task. Experimental Psychology, 50(2):77-85.Paradigm source, Adults
- No normative data for this task.Paradigm source, N/A
Questions
How long does the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task take?
About 5 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?
EAST Effect, Flower Score, Insect Score, EAST Error Effect, Flower Error Score, Insect Error Score, Fitting Key Time, Conflicting Key Time, Error Rate, Colored Word Errors, White Word Errors, Anticipations, Good Key Left, Blue On Good Key, Planned Test Trials and Total Test Trials. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task used in research?
7 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract. That ranks it 463 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task have?
In the published research, 3 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 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 languages can participants use?
The instructions and screens are in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. The words and sentences stay in English, so sessions in other languages are flagged for review. 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.