However, there are also limitations to consider. Like the IAT and the SC-IAT, it’s possible that a motivated participant could deliberately control the outcome of the task (Tiege-Mocigemba and Klauer, 2008), suggesting that this measure is also susceptible to manipulation, and controls must therefore be put in place. The reliability of this measure is notoriously low, rarely exceeding .50 and commonly even lower than that (Gawronski and De Houwer, in press) – this is a very low reliability score, suggesting that this measure is not the most appropriate to use, as the reliability of the results is questionable.

Another implicit measure is the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) by Payne, Cheng, Govorun and Stewart (2005), which measures automatically activated responses based on misattributions participants make about the sources of their affect. This measure is based on the idea that valence of a perceived stimuli will automatically transfer to a subsequently-presented neutral stimulus. A standard AMP consists of trials with a prime, followed by a blank screen, followed by a Chinese ideograph, followed by a black and white mask. The task is to indicate whether they consider the Chinese ideograph visually more or less pleasant than the average Chinese character. The general finding in an AMP is that neutral Chinese ideographs are evaluated more positively when participants are primed with a positive rather than a negative stimulus. Payne et al. (2005) assumed that the underlying mechanism is affect misattribution, where the actual source of the affect – the prime – is incorrectly 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