Measuring Interpretation Bias Using Sentence Constructing Task with Chinese Homographs

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.03.007

Studies of Psychology and Behavior ›› 2022, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (3): 332-338.DOI: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.03.007

Previous Articles Next Articles

Measuring Interpretation Bias Using Sentence Constructing Task with Chinese Homographs

YU Guanlin^1,2, ZHANG Lu^1,2, GUO Jiayi³, ZHANG Wencai^1,2

1. CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101;
2. Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049;
3. Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875

Received:2022-02-16 Online:2022-05-20

多义词造句任务对负性解释偏差的测量

于冠琳^1,2, 张璐^1,2, 郭佳怡³, 张文彩^1,2

1. 中国科学院心理研究所，中国科学院心理健康重点实验室，北京 100101;
2. 中国科学院大学心理学系，北京 100049;
3. 北京师范大学教育学部，北京 100875

通讯作者: 张文彩，E-mail：zhangwc@psych.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金面上项目（31371131）；北京市科委重点项目（D151100002315003）；中国科学院心理研究所自主部署项目（E0CX151008，E0CX371008）

Abstract

Abstract: This study aimed to search for usable Chinese homographs for interpretation bias measurement and test their measuring validity in individuals with generalized anxiety symptoms using Sentence Constructing Task (SCT). By rating and comparing usage frequency of the negative and benign meanings of the homographs, as well as testing reliability, validity and ability of hiding experimental intentions, a 34-item SCT was generated, in which the homograph items have meanings of approximately identical usage frequencies and anxiety-specific. Results showed that the 34-item SCT had high internal constancy and structural validity in measuring the interpretation bias of generalized anxiety and state anxiety. Compared to the scrambled sentence test, there were significantly fewer participants who figured out the intentions of the SCT, showing that the SCT is a more implicit measurement. In conclusion, the 34-item SCT has good reliability and validity, and can be used as a convenient and implicit measurement in future research.

Key words: interpretation bias, homograph, sentence constructing task, generalized anxiety

摘要： 本研究旨在归纳中文里可以用于测量解释偏差的多义词，并使用多义词造句任务，在广泛性焦虑症状人群中评估其测量有效性。经过对多义词负性与非负性含义常用程度的评分以及多义词造句任务项目区分度、信度、效度和目的隐蔽性的检验，筛选出两含义常用程度大致相同且对焦虑较为敏感的34个题目构成多义词造句任务，该任务信度良好，可以有效测得高低广泛性焦虑和状态焦虑人群中解释偏差的显著差异，且与同类的乱句重排任务相比，能猜出与猜对实验目的的被试显著更少。因此，中文多义词造句任务信效度良好，具有便捷、隐蔽的优势，可以用于解释偏差的相关研究。

关键词: 解释偏差, 多义词, 造句任务, 广泛性焦虑

CLC Number:

B842

YU Guanlin, ZHANG Lu, GUO Jiayi, ZHANG Wencai. Measuring Interpretation Bias Using Sentence Constructing Task with Chinese Homographs[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(3): 332-338.

于冠琳, 张璐, 郭佳怡, 张文彩. 多义词造句任务对负性解释偏差的测量[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 332-338.

References

何筱衍, 李春波, 钱洁, 崔海松, 吴文源. (2010). 广泛性焦虑量表在综合性医院的信度和效度研究. 上海精神医学, 22(4), 200–203
黄丽, 杨廷忠, 季忠民. (2003). 正性负性情绪量表的中国人群适用性研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, (1), 54-56.
刘冰茜, 李雪冰. (2018). 解释偏向矫正: “自下而上”地改变社交焦虑个体的解释偏向? 心理科学进展, 26(5), 859–871.
汪向东, 王希林, 马弘. (1999). 心理卫生评定量表手册(增订版). 北京: 中国心理卫生杂志社.
张晓敏, 蔡文鹏, 陈艾彬, 屠志浩, 刘广宇, 邓光辉. (2019). 高、低状态焦虑军人解释偏向的差异研究. 中国全科医学, 22(23), 2856–2860
Anderson, K. G., Dugas, M. J., Koerner, N., Radomsky, A. S., Savard, P., & Turcotte, J. (2012). Interpretive style and intolerance of uncertainty in individuals with anxiety disorders: A focus on generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(8), 823–832.
Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1988). Anxiety and depression: An information processing perspective. Anxiety Research, 1(1), 23–36.
Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1997). An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(1), 49–58, doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00069-1.
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). New York: Guilford Press.
Everaert, J., Podina, I. R., & Koster, E. H. W. (2017). A comprehensive meta-analysis of interpretation biases in depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 58, 33–48, doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.005.
Eysenck, M. W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A., & Mathews, A. (1991). Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(2), 144–150, doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.100.2.144.
French, C. C., & Richards, A. (1992). Word association norms for a set of threat/neutral homographs. Cognition and Emotion, 6(1), 65–87, doi: 10.1080/02699939208411058.
Hazlett-Stevens, H., & Borkovec, T. D. (2004). Interpretive cues and ambiguity in generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(8), 881–892, doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00204-3.
Hirsch, C. R., & Mathews, A. (2012). A cognitive model of pathological worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50(10), 636–646, doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2012.06.007.
Hirsch, C. R., Meeten, F., Krahé, C., & Reeder, C. (2016). Resolving ambiguity in emotional disorders: The nature and role of interpretation biases. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 281–305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093436.
Jalal, B., & Amir, N. (2014). Semantic priming and interpretation bias in social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38(1), 23–32, doi: 10.1007/s10608-013-9582-8.
Jin, Y. B., Li, J., & Zhang, F. (2014). Biased interpretation of ambiguous information by shy individuals. Journal of Psychological Science, 37(3), 700–703.
Jones, E. B., & Sharpe, L. (2017). Cognitive bias modification: A review of meta-analyses. Journal of Affective Disorders, 223, 175–183, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.034.
Mathews, A. (2012). Effects of modifying the interpretation of emotional ambiguity. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 92–105, doi: 10.1080/20445911.2011.584527.
Mathews, A., & Macleod, C. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 167–195, doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143916.
Rude, S. S., Wenzlaff, R. M., Gibbs, B., Vane, J., & Whitney, T. (2002). Negative processing biases predict subsequent depressive symptoms. Cognition and Emotion, 16(3), 423–440.
Schoth, D. E., & Liossi, C. (2017). A systematic review of experimental paradigms for exploring biased interpretation of ambiguous information with emotional and neutral associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 171, doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00171.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & L?we, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097, doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.
Taghavi, M. R., Moradi, A. R., Neshat-Doost, H. T., Yule, W., & Dalgleish, T. (2000). Interpretation of ambiguous emotional information in clinically anxious children and adolescents. Cognition and Emotion, 14(6), 809–822, doi: 10.1080/02699930050156645.
Wenzlaff, R. M., & Bates, D. E. (1998). Unmasking a cognitive vulnerability to depression: How lapses in mental control reveal depressive thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1559–1571, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1559.
Wisco, B. E., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2010). Interpretation bias and depressive symptoms: The role of self-relevance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(11), 1113–1122, doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.08.004.

Measuring Interpretation Bias Using Sentence Constructing Task with Chinese Homographs

多义词造句任务对负性解释偏差的测量

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 1

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments