Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety.

Abstract

In the 1st of 2 experiments, currently clinically anxious, recovered clinically anxious, and normal control subjects were presented with a mixture of unambiguous and ambiguous sentences; both threatening and nonthreatening interpretations were possible for the latter. A subsequent recognition-memory test indicated that the currently anxious subjects were more likely than normal control and recovered anxious subjects to interpret the ambiguous sentences in a threatening fashion rather than in a nonthreatening fashion. This suggests that the biased interpretation of ambiguity found in currently anxious subjects reflected their anxious mood state. A 2nd experiment established that the difference in interpretative processes between currently anxious and control subjects was not due to response bias and that the interpretative bias was a reasonably general one.

Am I Blue? Depressed Mood and the Consequences of Self-Focus for the Interpretation and Recall of Ambiguous Words

“…Scores on the BDI are highly correlated with trait anxiety measures. Plainly, anxiety experienced by our dysphoric participants might be at least partly responsible for the pattern of results, because interpretive biases have frequently been demon strated in anxiety (e.g., Eysenck, Mogg, May, Richards, & Mathews, 1991;MacLeod & Cohen, 1993). Recently, anxiety-related interpretive biases have been successfully modeled in nonanxious groups (e.g., Mathews & Mackinto sh, 2000).…”

Affective primes suppress attention bias to threat in socially anxious individuals

“…Previous research has shown that anxious individuals have a tendency to interpret ambiguous information as negative (Eysenck, Mogg, May, Richards, & Mathews, 1991;MacLeod & Cohen, 1993;Bar-Haim et al, 2007) and the presentation of the social threat word may increase this propensity. This could explain the lack of change in the ERPs of high socially-anxious individuals between threat prime trials and neutral prime trials.…”

Interpretation of Ambiguous Situations: Evidence for a Dissociation Between Social and Physical Threat in Williams Syndrome

“…As discussed, there is extensive evidence that anxious typically-developing individuals are biased to interpret ambiguous stimuli as threatening (Creswell et al, 2005;Eysenck et al, 1991;Hadwin et al, Interpretation bias 17 1997;Muris et al, 2003). Given the interpretation bias evident for the WS group on the physical situations, the present findings suggest that the cognitive processes underpinning GAD and Specific Phobia in this atypical population may be similar to those that underpin anxiety in the typically developing population.…”

“…In contrast, a non-threatening interpretation would be that someone dropped something. There is substantial evidence, based on research using both methodologies, that clinically anxious adults and children, and individuals high in trait anxiety, exhibit a tendency to interpret ambiguous stimuli in a threatening way (Creswell, Schniering, & Rapee, 2005;Eysenck et al, 1991;Hadwin, Frost, French, & Richards, 1997;Muris, Rapee, Meesters, Shouten, & Geers, 2003). In one such study, Barrett, Rapee, Dadds, and Ryan (1996) asked clinically anxious and non-anxious control children what they would think was happening in twelve ambiguous situations.…”