The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Anxiety and the interpretation of ambiguity: A text comprehension study.
Abstract
Beck's influential cognitive account of anxiety has led to the prediction that individuals vulnerable to anxiety should favor threatening interpretations of ambiguity (e.g., Beck & Clark, 1988; Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1986). The current study introduces a novel adaptation of the RSVP technique, previously used in text comprehension research, to evaluate this hypothesis. Results suggest that a group of 24 high trait anxious students did indeed selectively impose threatening interpretations on unconstrained ambiguous sentences. In contrast, a matched group of 24 low trait anxious students appeared to selectively impose non-threatening interpretations on such ambiguous sentences. These findings are fully consistent with the predicted anxiety-linked interpretative bias. Specific testable hypotheses are developed concerning the types of interpretative idiosyncrasies that plausibly may contribute to pathological anxiety.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“This task was construed in line with the threatening interpretation bias scenarios from Mayer et al. (2009) and from MacLeod and Cohen (1993).”
From Mindfulness, Interpretation Bias, and Levels of Anxiety and Depression: Two Mediation Studies (2019) · cites this paper as MacLeod and Cohen 1993
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2009) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930903132496 · Cited by 742
Induced emotional interpretation bias and anxiety.
Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B. (2000) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.109.4.602 · Cited by 739
Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care
Fallowfield, L. J., & Jenkins, V. A. (1999) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00212-9 · Cited by 558
Cognitive-processing bias in chronic pain: a review and integration.
Pincus, T., & Morley, S. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.5.599 · Cited by 501
A biopsychosocial formulation of pain communication.
Hadjistavropoulos, T., Craig, K. D., Duck, S., Cano, A., Goubert, L., Jackson, P. L., Mogil, J. S., Rainville, P., Sullivan, M. J. L., Williams, A. C. D. C., et al. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0023876 · Cited by 466
Metadata
- Authors
- MacLeod, C., & Cohen, I. L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- ORCID
- MacLeod, Colin
- Venue
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology
- Published
- 1993-05
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 238-247
- ISSN
- 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1846
- OpenAlex
- W2073092513
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 2.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
- Keywords
- anxiety, interpretation bias, ambiguity, Beck, trait anxiety, text comprehension, rapid serial visual presentation, ambiguous sentences, pathological anxiety
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Arousal, Depressive Disorder, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Language, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Speech Perception
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
