Table 1.

Summary of published studies on mood congruent bias in implicit memory.

Study	Participants	Task	Encoding	Priming scores		Criteria
						A	B	C
Richards & French (1991)	H vs. L	WFC	self-referred	H	2.50 items *	−	−	+
				L	0.87 items
			read only	H	−0.12 items	−	−	−
				L	3.25 items *
Nugent & Mineka (1994)	H vs. L	WSC	liking task	H	− 0.10 items	−	−	−
(Experiment 1)				L	− 0.64 items
Eysenck & Byrne (1994)	H vs. L	WSC	reading vs. generating	H	3.2 items *	+	+	+
			(results collapsed)	L	− 1.0 items
Bradley et al. (1994)	H vs. L	LEX	self-referred	H	−18 ms	−	−	−
			subliminal presentation	L	−10 ms
			self-referred	H	5 ms	−	−	−
			supraliminal presentation	L	15 ms
Mathews et al. (1989)	GAD vs. L	WSC	self-referred	GAD	0.70 items	+	+	−
				L	−1.2 Items
Mathews et al. (1995)	GAD vs. L	WSC	counting Es	GAD	−0.09 items	−	−	−
				L	0.09 Items
MacLeod & McLaughlin (1995)	GAD vs. L	WID	reading	GAD	1.37 items	+	+	?
				L	−1.24 items
Otto et al. (1994)	GAD vs. L	WSC				−	−	−

Note. H = High trait anxiety participants; L = Low trait anxiety participants; GAD = Generalised Anxiety Disorder patients; WFC = Word fragment completion; WSC = Word stem completion; LEX = Lexical decision; WID = Word identification; Encoding = Encoding conditions; Priming Scores = Primed − Unprimed performance. Starred priming scores are significantly different from zero (p < .05). The column criteria refers to the criteria to decide on the presence of a mood congruent implicit memory bias. The sign “+” indicates that a criterion was passed. The sign “−” indicates that a criterion was not passed. The sign “?” indicates that no information was provided in the original study. Criteria are specified in the main text.

No specific information was available in Otto et al. (1994) study. In note it was simply written that there was ‘no evidence of differential implicit memory performance as a function of word type or group’. No data were reported.