Cited by 262Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The causal role of interpretive bias in anxiety reactivity

Wilson, Edward J., MacLeod, Colin, Mathews, Andrew, Rutherford, Elizabeth M.·2006·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

Elevated anxiety vulnerability is associated with a tendency to interpret ambiguous stimuli as threatening, but the causal basis of this relationship has not been established. Recently, procedures have been developed to systematically manipulate interpretive bias, but the impact of such manipulation on anxiety reactivity to a subsequent stressor has not yet been examined. In the present study, training procedures were used to induce interpretive biases favoring the threatening or nonthreatening meanings of ambiguous information in a sample of 48 undergraduate students. Following this interpretive training, participants' emotional reactions to a stressful video were assessed. The finding that the manipulation of interpretive bias modified emotional reactivity supports the hypothesis that interpretive bias can indeed play a causal role in anxiety vulnerability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-843x.115.1.103

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Contrary to predictions that the tendency to benignly interpret ambiguous situations should decrease the negative mood response particularly under conditions of emotional provocation, we did not find this in the present data.

    “Furthermore, contrary to predictions that the tendency to benignly interpret ambiguous situations should decrease the negative mood response particularly under conditions of emotional provocation [63], we did not find this in the present data.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, E. J., MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Rutherford, E. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2006-02
Volume
115
Issue
1
Pages
103-111
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2043978415
Cited by
262
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 24
FWCI
20.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
interpretation bias, threat interpretation, ambiguous stimuli, emotional reactivity, stress response, anxiety vulnerability, causal manipulation
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Cognition, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Teaching, Observer Variation, Bias

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