Article

Interpreting neutral faces as threatening is a default mode for socially anxious individuals

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, USA.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology (Impact Factor: 4.86). 09/2008; 117(3):680-5. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.117.3.680
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors of the present study used an incidental learning paradigm to investigate the interpretation of neutral facial expressions in socially anxious individuals. Participants were asked to detect the location of a target following the presentation of a facial picture (i.e., cue). Unbeknownst to participants, the target location was contingent on the valence of the cue, and participants thus learned to associate different target locations with either positive or negative facial expressions. The authors subsequently used this learned association to assess interpretive biases. If socially anxious individuals interpret neutral faces in a negative manner, they should be faster to detect a target that appears in the location that is associated with negative face cues when the target is presented after a neutral face cue. The authors also assessed whether the anticipation of a feared situation influenced interpretive biases by comparing participants with and without a speech threat on this task. Results indicate that socially anxious individuals are characterized by an interpretive bias regardless of the threat manipulation. In contrast, nonanxious individuals interpreted neutral faces in a negative manner only when they were in the threat condition.

0 Followers
 · 
96 Views
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research 10/2014; 38(5):551-558. DOI:10.1007/s10608-014-9619-7 · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of chronic pain on interpretation bias for ambiguous faces, using a recently developed paradigm with ecologically valid stimuli.Methods Fifty patients with chronic pain and 25 healthy controls were trained to respond to probes following the presentation of happy or painful faces, using an incidental learning task. During a test phase, ambiguous faces were presented. The degree to which participants were faster to respond to probes presented where painful (rather than happy) faces had previously been presented was taken as an indication of the interpretation bias towards painful faces.ResultsAll participants had learnt the originally presented contingency. As predicted, chronic pain patients showed a greater bias towards interpreting ambiguous faces as painful than control participants. Further, there were correlations between fear of pain and catastrophizing and interpretation bias, indicating that participants with higher fear of pain and higher scores on a measure of catastrophizing were more likely to interpret ambiguous faces as painful. Severity of pain was inversely associated with increased interpretation bias for pain.Conclusion These results show clear evidence that chronic pain patients do demonstrate an interpretation bias towards painful faces and that this bias is greater for those who catastrophize more and have higher levels of fear of pain, but experienced less pain in the preceding week. Given the recent potential shown for interventions that modify cognitive biases, this paradigm would seem to be well suited to future efforts to modify interpretation biases in pain.
    European journal of pain (London, England) 01/2015; DOI:10.1002/ejp.637 · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Individuals with pain-related concerns are likely to interpret ambiguous pain-related information in a threatening manner. It is unknown whether this interpretation bias also occurs for ambiguous pain-related facial expressions. This study examined whether individuals who habitually attach a catastrophic meaning to pain are characterized by negative interpretation bias for ambiguous pain-related facial expressions. Sixty-four female undergraduates completed an incidental learning task during which pictures of faces were presented, each followed by a visual target at one of two locations. Participants indicated target location by pressing one of two response keys. During the learning phase, happy and painful facial expressions predicted target location. During two test phases, morphed facial expressions of pain and happiness were added, equally often followed by a target at either location. Faster responses following morphs to targets at the location predicted by painful expressions compared to targets at the location predicted by happy expressions were taken to reflect pain-related interpretation bias. During one test phase, faces were preceded by either a safe or threatening context cue. High, but not low, pain-catastrophizers responded faster following morphs to targets at the location predicted by painful expressions than to targets at the other location (when participants were aware of the contingency between expression type and target location). When context cues were presented, there was no indication of interpretation bias. Participants were also asked to directly classify the facial expressions that were presented during the incidental learning task. Participants classified morphs more often as happy than as painful, independent of their level of pain catastrophizing. This observation is discussed in terms of differences between indirect and direct measures of interpretation bias.
    Frontiers in Psychology 09/2014; 5. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01002 · 2.80 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
43 Downloads
Available from
May 23, 2014