Cited by 516Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health via WritingMemory Processes and Influences

Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety

Eysenck, Michael W., Mogg, Karin, May, Jon, Richards, Anne, Mathews, Andrew·1991·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-843x.100.2.144

Cites

12 of 12 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eysenck, M. W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A., & Mathews, A.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
1991-05
Volume
100
Issue
2
Pages
144-150
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2055112615
Cited by
516
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 26
FWCI
11.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
interpretation bias, ambiguous sentences, threat interpretation, anxiety, anxiety disorders, recognition memory, response bias, mood states, cognitive biases
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Color Perception, Female, Humans, Language Tests, Male, Memory, Personality Inventory, Psychological Tests, Reaction Time, Semantics

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