ABSTRACT
Stimuli such as surprised faces are ambiguous in that they are associated with both positive and negative outcomes. Interestingly, people differ reliably in whether they evaluate these and other ambiguous stimuli as positive or negative, and we have argued that a positive evaluation relies in part on a biasing of the appraisal processes via reappraisal. To further test this idea, we conducted two studies to evaluate whether increasing the cognitive accessibility of reappraisal through a brief emotion regulation task would lead to an increase in positive evaluations of ambiguity. Supporting this prediction, we demonstrated that cuing reappraisal, but not in three other forms of emotion regulation (Study 1a-d; n = 120), increased positive evaluations of ambiguous faces. In a sign of robustness, we also found that the effect of reappraisal generalised from ambiguous faces to ambiguous scenes (Study 2; n = 34). Collectively, these findings suggest that reappraisal may play a key role in determining responses to ambiguous stimuli. We discuss these findings in the context of affective flexibility, and suggest that valence bias (i.e. the tendency to evaluate ambiguity more positively or negatively) represents a novel approach to measuring implicit emotion regulation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability
Unfortunately, we did not receive participant consent to upload individual-level data, but all group-level datasets generated and/or analysed in these studies are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Notes
1 Note that normative data (Lang et al., Citation2008) indicated that the negative images (M(SD) = 2.40(0.28) were more negative than the ambiguous images (M(SD) = 5.19(1.29), t(34) = 7.38, p < .001), which were more negative than the positive images (M(SD) = 7.93(0.24), t(34) = -7.27, p < .001). However, there was not a significant difference between the arousal of ambiguous images (M(SD) = 4.99(0.88)) from negative (M(SD) = 5.36(0.68), t(34) = -1.26, p = .22) and positive images (M(SD) = 4.96(0.63), t(34) = 0.10, p = .92), which also did not differ from one another (t(22) = 1.47, p = .16).