“This Isn’t a Promise, It’s a Threat”

Wood, Jeffrey S. and Haigh, Matthew and Stewart, Andrew J. (2016) “This Isn’t a Promise, It’s a Threat”. Experimental Psychology, 63 (2). pp. 89-97. ISSN 1618-3169

WOOD_2016_Wood_Haigh and Stewart_Exp_Psy_accepted.pdf - Accepted Version

Download (735kB)


Participants had their eye movements recorded as they read vignettes containing implied promises and threats. We observed a reading time penalty when participants read the word “threat” when it anaphorically referred to an implied promise. There was no such penalty when the word “promise” was used to refer to an implied threat. On a later measure of processing we again found a reading time penalty when the word “threat” was used to refer to a promise, but also when the word “promise” was used to refer to a threat. These results suggest that anaphoric processing of such expressions is driven initially by sensitivity to the semantic scope differences of “threats” versus “promises.” A threat can be understood as a type of promise, but a promise cannot be understood as a type of threat. However, this effect was short lived; readers were ultimately sensitive to mismatched meaning, regardless of speech act performed.

Item Type: Article
Identification Number: https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000315
23 May 2016Published
29 October 2015Accepted
Subjects: CAH04 - psychology > CAH04-01 - psychology > CAH04-01-01 - psychology (non-specific)
Divisions: Faculty of Business, Law and Social Sciences > School of Social Sciences > Dept. Psychology
Depositing User: Panagiotis Rentzelas
Date Deposited: 20 Jun 2017 21:44
Last Modified: 12 Jan 2022 11:39
URI: https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4724

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item


In this section...