Examining demand effects on direct and indirect affect measures in affect induction procedures.

Abstract

Affect induction procedures are effectively implemented in psychological research. However, because participants are typically asked to self-report their affect immediately after viewing emotional stimuli, the goal of eliciting affect is relatively easy for participants to infer, making their responses susceptible to demand effects. To examine this demand effect, research has used an unrelated-studies paradigm, in which participants are led to believe that they are participating in two different, unrelated studies. While this paradigm has been used in some studies using affect induction procedures, none have examined the extent of demand effects in affect induction procedures. To do so, we conducted six online experiments (N = 170, N = 254, N = 664, N = 260, N = 239, N = 249) by contrasting an unrelated- with a related-studies design. The participants in the related-studies condition were to believe that the affect measurement after the induction belonged to the same pretest as the affect induction, whereas the participants in the unrelated-studies condition were to believe that this measurement was part of a second, unrelated pretest. We found that a related- versus unrelated-studies design produced a significant demand effect for both positive and negative affect, as indicated by greater increases in positive and negative affect in the related-studies compared with the unrelated-studies condition. Demand effects were also found on some indirect measures of affect, as reflected by a significantly smaller self-reported momentary thought-action repertoire, but not by worse memory performance or more distrust in the related-studies condition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).