Training the Interpretation of Ambiguity

<p>The interpretation of emotionally ambiguous words, sentences, or scenarios can be biased through training procedures that are collectively called Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation (CBM-I). Little CBM-I research has examined the underlying mechanisms responsible for the induction of emotional interpretive biases, or the potential for this line of enquiry to inform psycholinguistic models of meaning activation and selection. In this thesis a novel CBM-I paradigm was developed and then systematically manipulated in order to discriminate between two mechanistic accounts of changes in interpretive bias – the Emotional Priming Account and the Ambiguity Resolution Account. In Experiment 1 participants completed word fragments that were consistently related to either a negative or benign interpretation of an ambiguous sentence. In a subsequent semantic priming task they demonstrated an interpretation bias, in that they were faster to judge the relatedness of targets that were associated with the training-congruent than the training-incongruent meaning of an emotionally ambiguous homograph. In Experiment 2 the time between the presentation of the prime and the target (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony; SOA) at test was shortened. Interpretive biases were not observed at a short SOA suggesting that training did not induce biases at an early lexical activation stage. Interpretive bias was then eliminated when participants simply completed valenced word fragments (Experiment 3) or completed fragments related to emotional but unambiguous sentences (Experiment 4) during training. Only when participants were required to actively resolve emotionally ambiguous sentences during training did changes in interpretation emerge at test. These findings suggest that CBM-I achieves its effects by altering a production rule that aids the selection of a single meaning from alternatives, in line with an Ambiguity Resolution account. Finally, no interpretive biases were observed when the task in the test phase was substituted with a lexical decision task (Experiment 5). Participants only showed biases in the selection of meanings when the test phase encouraged them to interpret the prime. This pattern of results suggests that the alteration of selection patterns in word recognition depend on the strategies employed by participants in the test phase. Overall the findings are discussed with regards to the Ambiguity Resolution and Emotional Priming accounts of modified interpretive biases. Implications for current psycholinguistic models of meaning activation and selection are considered.</p>