Experimental Manipulation of Beliefs about Uncertainty: Effects on Interpretive Processing and Access to Threat Schemata

This study investigated the influence of beliefs about uncertainty on interpretive biases and access to threat schemata, with the use of an experimental manipulation. Individuals from the community and undergraduate students (N = 74) were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: positive beliefs about uncertainty (n = 37) and negative beliefs about uncertainty (n = 37). To manipulate beliefs about uncertainty, participants watched a presentation on problem solving that either contained information about the positive or the negative effects of uncertainty on problem solving. To assess interpretive biases, participants completed a modified version of the Ambiguous/Unambiguous Situations Diary. Participants read potentially threatening passages and rated their level of worry. Passages were then disambiguated either positively or negatively and participants rated the likelihood and the value (goodness or badness) of these events. To assess access to threat schemata, the Catastrophizing Interview was administered. The Catastrophizing Interview is a structured worry task that assesses various aspects of the worry process, using the downward arrow technique. The results indicated that, although many of the expected group differences were not observed, participants in the negative beliefs about uncertainty group did rate the positively disambiguated scenarios as less positive and the average likelihood of feared consequences to personal worries as more probable. This study provides partial support for the notion that beliefs about uncertainty may have a causal effect on interpretations of ambiguous situations as well as on ease of access to threat schemata.