No abstract

The affect misattribution procedure (AMP) measures automatically activated responses based on the misattributions people make about the sources of their affect or cognitions. The AMP is one of the most widely used implicit attitude measures, and evidence regarding its reliability and validity has grown rapidly. In this brief review, we survey the evidence of reliability and validity while discussing the mechanisms that drive priming effects in the AMP. We consider the unique capabilities of this procedure to measure implicit and explicit cognition with simplicity and greater experimental control than other measures. Finally, we offer recommendations for using the AMP effectively for a wide variety of research purposes.

Economic inequality in America is at historically high levels. Although most Americans indicate that they would prefer greater equality, redistributive policies aimed at reducing inequality are frequently unpopular. Traditional accounts posit that attitudes toward redistribution are driven by economic self-interest or ideological principles. From a social psychological perspective, however, we expected that subjective comparisons with other people may be a more relevant basis for self-interest than is material wealth. We hypothesized that participants would support redistribution more when they felt low than when they felt high in subjective status, even when actual resources and self-interest were held constant. Moreover, we predicted that people would legitimize these shifts in policy attitudes by appealing selectively to ideological principles concerning fairness. In four studies, we found correlational (Study 1) and experimental (Studies 2-4) evidence that subjective status motivates shifts in support for redistributive policies along with the ideological principles that justify them.

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.

Positivity resonance is a type of interpersonal connection characterized by shared positivity, mutual care and concern, and behavioral and biological synchrony. Perceived positivity resonance is hypothesized to be associated with well-being. In three studies ( N = 175, N = 120, N = 173), perceived positivity resonance was assessed at the trait level (Study 1) or the episode level, using the Day Reconstruction Method (Studies 2 and 3). Primary analyses reveal that perceived positivity resonance is associated with flourishing mental health, depressive symptoms, loneliness, and illness symptoms. These associations largely remain statistically significant when controlling for daily pleasant emotions or social interaction more generally. Ancillary analyses in Studies 2 and 3 support the construct validity of the episode-level assessment of perceived positivity resonance. The overall pattern of results is consistent with Positivity Resonance Theory. Discussion centers on avenues for future research and the need for behavioral interventions.