Does the Linguistic Expectancy Bias Extend to a Second Language?

The linguistic expectancy bias (LEB) reflects the tendency to describe expectancy-consistent behavior more abstractly than expectancy-inconsistent. The current studies replicate the LEB in Portuguese and examine it in a second language (English). Earlier studies found differences in processing a first language (L1) and a second language (L2) shaping affective and cognitive processes. We did not expect these differences to shape the LEB because controlled lexical decisions (e.g., use of verbs and adjectives) are unlikely, even when using L2. Participants wrote stereotypically male or female behavioral descriptions for male and female targets. A new group of participants read those descriptions and was asked about their causes. Expectancy-consistent behavior was described more abstractly and shaped more dispositional inferences in L1 and L2. Aside from replicating the LEB in a different language, these studies indicate that structural features of language preserve a linguistic bias with implications for social perception even when using a second language.

Shifting Episodic Prediction With Online Cognitive Bias Modification: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Negative future thinking pervades emotional disorders. This hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial tested a four-session, scalable online cognitive bias modification program for training more positive episodic prediction. 958 adults (73.3% female, 86.5% White, 83.4% from United States) were randomized to positive conditions with ambiguous future scenarios that ended positively, 50/50 conditions that ended positively or negatively, or a control condition with neutral scenarios. As hypothesized (preregistration: https://osf.io/jrst6), positive training participants improved in negative and positive expectancy bias, self-efficacy, and optimism more than control participants, ds and 97.5% CIs = -0.57 [-0.87, -0.27], 0.79 [0.42, 1.15], 0.28 [0.02, 0.53], 0.28 [0.04, 0.51], and, for expectancy bias, more than 50/50 participants, with gains maintained at 1-month follow-up. Unexpectedly, participants across conditions improved comparably in anxiety and depression symptoms and growth mindset. Targeting a transdiagnostic process with a scalable program may improve bias and outlook; however, further validation of outcome measures is required.

A Systematic Study of Microdosing Psychedelics

The phenomenon of ‘microdosing’, that is, regular ingestion of very small quantities of psychedelic substances, has seen a rapid explosion of popularity in recent years. Individuals who microdose report minimal acute effects from these substances yet claim a range of long-term general health and wellbeing benefits. There have been no published empirical studies of microdosing and the current legal and bureaucratic climate makes direct empirical investigation of the effects of psychedelics difficult. In Study One we conducted a systematic, observational investigation of individuals who microdose. We tracked the experiences of 98 microdosing participants, who provided daily ratings of psychological functioning over a six week period. 63 of these additionally completed a battery of psychometric measures tapping mood, attention, wellbeing, mystical experiences, personality, creativity, and sense of agency, at baseline and at completion of the study. Analyses of daily ratings revealed a general increase in reported psychological functioning across all measures on dosing days but limited evidence of residual effects on following days. Analyses of pre and post study measures revealed reductions in reported levels of depression and stress; lower levels of distractibility; increased absorption; and increased neuroticism. To better understand these findings, in Study Two we investigated pre-existing beliefs and expectations about the effects of microdosing in a sample of 263 naïve and experienced microdosers, so as to gauge expectancy bias. All participants believed that microdosing would have large and wide-ranging benefits in contrast to the limited outcomes reported by actual microdosers. Notably, the effects believed most likely to change were unrelated to the observed pattern of reported outcomes. The current results suggest that dose controlled empirical research on the impacts of microdosing on mental health and attentional capabilities are needed.

Can Threat Information Bias Fear Learning? Some Tentative Results and Methodological Considerations

Whereas it is widely recognized that both verbal threat information and stimulus pairings can install strong and persistent fear, few studies have addressed the interaction between these two pathways of fear. According to the expectancy bias of Davey (1992, 1997), verbal information can install expectancy biases for aversive events that can result in facilitated fear learning through stimulus pairings and can delay extinction of fear. However, these predictions of the expectancy bias account have not been explored fully. Following up on two earlier studies (Field & Storksen-Coulson, 2007; Ugland, Dyson, & Field, 2013), we investigated the impact of prior threat information on fear acquisition, extinction and reinstatement. To this aim, participants received instructions about four unfamiliar animals, two of which that were described as dangerous whereas the other two were described as harmless. One animal of each pair was subsequently paired with an electric stimulus. Our results indicated that threat information resulted in stronger fear responses prior to fear conditioning and in delayed extinction of fear. However, these effects of instructions were not very pronounced and not found on all measures of fear. We discuss several methodological and procedural considerations that may modulate the effects of (verbally installed) expectancy biases.