Cited by 9Eating Disorders and BehaviorsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

A disgust mood state causes a negative interpretation bias, but not in the specific domain of body-related concerns

Mayer, Birgit, Muris, Peter, Busser, Karlien, Bergamin, Jessy·2009·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The present study was designed to examine the effects of a disgust mood state on negative interpretation bias, in particular in the domain of body and weight concerns. Participants (N = 120) were randomly assigned to one of four mood induction groups (i.e., disgust, anxiety, happy, and neutral) and were afterwards asked to respond to various types of ambiguous scenarios to index general threat interpretations, negative body-related interpretations, and neutral/positive interpretations. Results demonstrated that both the anxiety and disgust mood induction groups displayed higher levels of negative interpretations of the ambiguous threat scenarios than the neutral and happy groups. However, no evidence was obtained for a negative interpretation bias in the body-related domain for these negative mood groups, and this conclusion was also true for participants scoring high on a scale of eating disorder symptoms. Altogether, these findings suggest that disgust does not play a role in eating pathology by inducing a negative interpretation bias in the specific domain of body and weight concerns.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2009.07.001

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Interpretation Bias Task was construed in line with threatening interpretation bias scenarios from Mayer et al. (2009) and MacLeod and Cohen (1993).

    “This task was construed in line with the threatening interpretation bias scenarios from Mayer et al. (2009) and from MacLeod and Cohen (1993).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mayer, B., Muris, P., Busser, K., & Bergamin, J.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Mayer, Birgit
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
47
Issue
10
Pages
876-881
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036657828
Cited by
9
References
31
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
disgust, mood induction, interpretation bias, threat interpretation, body image concern, weight concern, anxiety, eating disorder symptoms, ambiguous scenarios, eating pathology
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Anxiety, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Body Image, Body Weight, Depression, Female, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review