Positive and negative moods differently affect creative meaning processing in both the native and non-native language

Mood effects on semantic processes: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence

“…Unlike in Naranowicz et al (2022b), the anomalous sentences were built based on general knowledge violations. Jankowiak et al (2022) observed expected higher P600/ LPC amplitudes to anomalous compared to both novel metaphoric and literal sentences in a positive mood, suggesting that general knowledge violations required increased semantic integration and re-analysis, irrespective of language of operation. Yet, there were no differences in P600/LPC responses between the three sentence types in a negative mood, suggesting that a negative mood may promote more attentive and detail-oriented processing, decreasing reliance on heuristics.…”

“…Herz et al, 2020). Such predictions have gained support in both behavioural (Bless et al, 1996) and electrophysiological research on the mood-semantics interactions (Van Berkum et al, 2013;Vissers et al, 2013;Jankowiak et al, 2022). An important observation may be that the predictions of perception-oriented models might be testable when information typicality/relevance (Bless et al, 1996), cognitive biases (Van Berkum et al, 2013), and general knowledge violations (Vissers et al, 2013;Jankowiak et al, 2022) are manipulated.…”

“…Such predictions have gained support in both behavioural (Bless et al, 1996) and electrophysiological research on the mood-semantics interactions (Van Berkum et al, 2013;Vissers et al, 2013;Jankowiak et al, 2022). An important observation may be that the predictions of perception-oriented models might be testable when information typicality/relevance (Bless et al, 1996), cognitive biases (Van Berkum et al, 2013), and general knowledge violations (Vissers et al, 2013;Jankowiak et al, 2022) are manipulated. Second, mood has been argued to regulate attention: positive and negative moods are, respectively, associated with global (i.e., top-down and broad) and narrow (i.e., bottom-up, local, and detail-oriented) attentional focus (e.g., Schwarz and Clore, 1983;Herz et al, 2020).…”

“…Recent electrophysiological research has offered corroborative evidence for reliance on heuristics in a positive mood during meaning integration, additionally pointing to similar mooddriven mechanisms being activated during native (L1) and non-native (L2) language processing (Jankowiak et al, 2022). In an SDT, Jankowiak et al (2022) explored how film-induced positive and negative moods influence creative meaning processing in proficient Polish-English bilinguals, presenting participants with words embedded in literal, anomalous, and novel metaphoric sentences. Unlike in Naranowicz et al (2022b), the anomalous sentences were built based on general knowledge violations.…”

“…Finally, electrophysiological research on the moodlanguage interactions has recently been extended to the bilingual context (Kissler and Bromberek-Dyzman, 2021;Naranowicz et al, 2022b;Jankowiak et al, 2022; see also Naranowicz et al, 2022a), demonstrating that positive and negative moods may differently affect consecutive stages of L1 and L2 processing (Naranowicz et al, 2022b). In an SDT, Naranowicz et al (2022b) explored how film-induced positive and negative moods affect bilingual language processing in Polish-English bilinguals, who made meaningfulness judgements on words embedded in meaningful (i.e., expected) and meaningless (i.e., rather unexpected) sentences.…”