ncorrectly identified, and the affect that is triggered by the prime is mistakenly attributed to the target. The AMP is not scored by comparing response latencies like other implicit measures but is instead scored by calculating the proportion of times a participant responds “more pleasant” and “less pleasant” after each prime.

The AMP has multiple strengths, such as its internal reliability, which is one of the highest among implicit measures (approximately .70-.90; Gawronski and De Houwer, in press), suggesting that results obtained are reliable. The number of trials in an AMP are one of the lowest of all implicit measures, meaning that it is easy and more appropriate to use in short experimental sessions. Priming effects in the AMP are resistant to deliberate attempts to control the influence of the primes – even when the participants are given explicit information about the how the prime stimulus influences their responses (Payne et al., 2005), meaning that this measure is the only measure mentioned that is not susceptible to manipulation. Recently, researchers (e.g. Gawronski and Ye, 2011) have investigated the usefulness of the AMP for semantic associations, broadening its potential applicability.

There are also disadvantages to this measure, such as the relatively flexible response format, which raises questions about what is actually being tested, bringing the measure’s validity into question – Gawronski and Ye (2014) demonstrated that effects in the AMP can be driven by misattribution to both affective and semantic concepts, and Wentura and Degner (2010) ruled out that the effects of the AMP are driven by response priming – both of these findings impact the validity of this measure. This measure cannot be used with participants who are familiar with Chinese ideographs, as the stimuli would no longer be neutral. Participants may also sometimes base responses