Salemink Elske, van den Hout Marcel, Kindt Merel
Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Behav Res Ther. 2007 Feb;45(2):329-40. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.011. Epub 2006 Jul 21.
The relationship between anxiety and interpretive bias has been studied extensively, but the causal direction of this relationship remains largely unexplored. Do negative interpretations cause anxiety or is anxiety the cause of negative interpretations? Or are the two mutually reinforcing? The present study addressed this issue by experimentally inducing either a negative or a positive interpretive bias using Mathews and Mackintosh' [(2002). Induced emotional interpretation bias and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 604-615] training paradigm and then examining its impact on state anxiety and anxiety vulnerability. In addition, it was investigated as to whether the interpretive bias was trained implicitly. Results indicated that style of interpreting could be manipulated. That is, when confronted with ambiguous information after the training, participants (n=118) interpreted this information congruent with their (positive or negative) training condition. Data on the issue of implicitness showed that participants tended to be explicitly aware of the valence of their training stimuli. Effects of trained interpretive bias on anxiety were only marginal and absent on anxiety vulnerability. It appears that interpretive bias can be trained reliably, but its effects on mood and vulnerability require further explanation.
焦虑与解释性偏差之间的关系已得到广泛研究，但这种关系的因果方向在很大程度上仍未得到探索。是消极解释导致焦虑，还是焦虑是消极解释的原因？或者两者相互强化？本研究通过使用马修斯和麦金托什[（2002年）。诱发情绪解释偏差与焦虑。《变态心理学杂志》，109，604 - 615]的训练范式实验性地诱发消极或积极的解释性偏差，然后考察其对状态焦虑和焦虑易感性的影响，从而解决了这个问题。此外，还研究了这种解释性偏差是否是隐性训练的。结果表明，解释风格是可以被操纵的。也就是说，在训练后面对模糊信息时，参与者（n = 118）会按照他们（积极或消极）的训练条件来解释这些信息。关于隐性问题的数据表明，参与者往往能明确意识到他们训练刺激的效价。训练后的解释性偏差对焦虑的影响仅微乎其微，对焦虑易感性则没有影响。看来解释性偏差可以可靠地被训练，但其对情绪和易感性的影响还需要进一步解释。
