(Recognition Statement 5)[ 1].
As our first mixed-measures ANOVA analysis showed a significant 3-way interaction between recognition statement type, recognition statement valence and training group [F 1,42) = 15.67, p < .001], we conducted separate 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs for target and foil ratings.
As preliminary analysis confirmed a significant main effect of recognition statement type (p < 0.001) and a significant 3-way interaction between recognition statement type, recognition statement valence and training group (p < 0.001), we conducted separate 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs for target and foil ratings.
This would be demonstrated in a significant three-way interaction reflecting the same pattern of findings described above, that was not modified further by the type of recognition memory statement (disambiguated statement vs. foil statement).
To assess whether participants acquired an interpretive bias in line with their assigned valence condition, mean similarity ratings of the positively disambiguated recognition memory statements and the negatively disambiguated recognition memory statements for the ten ambiguous test scenarios were examined.
However, if it were a true interpretive bias, then, we would expect a significant four-way interaction, comprising a significant three-way interaction for the disambiguated recognition memory statements only, and no three-way interaction involving foil statements.
Examination of the component three-way interactions revealed the significant interaction for the disambiguated recognition memory statements described above F 1, 74) = 8.79, p < .01, ηp2 = .11 and no three-way interaction for the foil statements, F < 1.
This comprised a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA with scenario valence condition (positive vs. negative) and scenario ambiguity condition (ambiguity present vs. ambiguity absent) as the between subjects factors, and recognition memory statement valence (positive vs. negative) and recognition memory statement type (disambiguated statement vs. foil statement) as the within subject factors.
Consistent with the position that present findings represent the genuine acquisition of an interpretive bias, a significant four-way interaction was observed between scenario valence condition, scenario ambiguity condition, type of recognition memory statement, and valence of the recognition memory statement, F 1, 74) = 5.09, p = .027, ηp2 = .064.064
Consistent with the Ambiguity Resolution Account a significant three-way interaction was indeed observed between scenario valence condition, scenario ambiguity condition, and recognition memory statement valence F 1, 74) = 8.79, p = .004, ηp2 = .11.11
