In the WSAP, participants decide whether or not a word (implying a threat or benign interpretation) is related to an ambiguous sentence. Threat or benign meanings preceded the ambiguity in order to examine the influence of positive and negative beliefs on interpretation of ambiguous information. The WSAP results in two types of interpretation indices: (1)Response latency to make relatedness decisions for threat and benign interpretations, and (2) Endorsement rates of the relatedness of threat and benign interpretations to ambiguous sentences. Cognitive models of anxiety posit that negative beliefs influence socially anxious individual's interpretation of ambiguous social cues.

1. Compiled by Col Mukteshwar Prasad(Retd),
Mtech(IITD),CE(I),FIE(I),FIETE,FISLE,FInstOD,AMCSI
Contact -9007224278, e-mail –
muktesh_prasad@yahoo.co.in
for book ”Decoding Services Selection Board” and SSB
guidance and training at Shivnandani Edu and Defence
Academy
Decoding Word Association -4
Word Sentence Association
Paradigm (WSAP)

2. Introduction
 In the WSAP, participants decide whether or not a word (implying a threat
or benign interpretation) is related to an ambiguous sentence.
 Threat or benign meanings preceded the ambiguity in order to examine the
influence of positive and negative beliefs on interpretation of ambiguous
information.
 The WSAP results in two types of interpretation indices:
 (1)Response latency to make relatedness decisions for threat and benign
interpretations, and
 (2) Endorsement rates of the relatedness of threat and benign interpretations to
ambiguous sentences.
 Cognitive models of anxiety posit that negative beliefs influence socially
anxious individuals' interpretation of ambiguous social cues.
 An interpretation bias for ambiguous information may be especially harmful to
individuals with social anxiety because social cues are often ambiguous and thus
easily distorted (Clark & Wells 1995).
 For example, it is difficult to know if a conversation partner's yawn indicates
boredom (threat interpretation) or exhaustion (benign interpretation).
 The cognitive models suggest that socially anxious (SA) individuals rely
on pre-existing negative beliefs to resolve ambiguous social cues.
 For example, a SA individual may enter a party with the negative belief (e.g.,
“I am boring”).
 That individual is then primed to interpret the yawn of a conversation partner
as indicative of him or her as being boring, rather than the partner's
exhaustion.

3. Was the word related to sentence?
Threat/benign can be (a)Social or (b) Non Social
Result can be
1.Endorsement of threat 2.Endorsement of benign 3.Rejection of threat 4.Rejection of
benign
Srl
No
Threat Word Benign
Word
(Not
harmful)
Ambiguous Sentence Related/
Non
related
1 “embarrassin
g”
“funny” “People laugh after something you said”
2. Terrorist Constructio
n
Part of the building is blown up”
3 Criticize Praise Your boss wants to meet with you
4 Embarrassin
g
Funny People laugh after something you said
5 Mad Distracted A friend does not respond when you
wave hello
6 Bored Busy Your date has to leave early
7 Clumsy Graceful You carry a tray of food at a party

8. embarrassing People laugh after something you s
Reject ThreatEndorsement Threat
Was the word related to the sentence?
Related(#1) Unrelated (#3)
Related(#1) Unrelated (#3)
You are Incorrect You are correct

9. funny People laugh after something you s
Reject ThreatEndorsement Threat
Was the word related to the sentence?
Related(#1) Unrelated (#3)
You are correct You are incorrect

14. IMP-Interpretation Modification Program
ICC-Interpretation Control Condition
LSAS-