Eysenck M W, Mogg K, May J, Richards A, Mathews A
Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham Surrey, United Kingdom.
J Abnorm Psychol. 1991 May;100(2):144-50. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.100.2.144.
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.
在两项实验的第一项中,选取了目前处于临床焦虑状态、已康复的临床焦虑患者以及正常对照组受试者,向他们呈现一组明确句子和歧义句子的混合句子;对于歧义句子,既可能有威胁性的解读,也可能有非威胁性的解读。随后的识别记忆测试表明,与正常对照组和已康复的焦虑患者相比,目前处于焦虑状态的受试者更有可能以威胁性而非非威胁性的方式解读歧义句子。这表明,目前处于焦虑状态的受试者中发现的对歧义的偏向性解读反映了他们的焦虑情绪状态。第二项实验证实,目前处于焦虑状态的受试者与对照组受试者在解读过程上的差异并非由于反应偏差,且这种解读偏差具有一定的普遍性。