Much of our basic understanding of cognitive and social processes in infancy relies on measures of looking time, and specifically on infants’ visual preference for a novel or familiar stimulus. However, despite being the foundation of many behavioral tasks in infant research, the determinants of infants’ visual preferences are poorly understood, and differences in the expression of preferences can be difficult to interpret. In this large-scale study, we test predictions from the Hunter and Ames model of infants' visual preferences. We investigate the effects of three factors predicted by this model to determine infants’ preference for novel versus familiar stimuli: age, stimulus familiarity, and stimulus complexity. Drawing from a large and diverse sample of infant participants (N = XX), this study will provide crucial empirical evidence for a robust and generalizable model of infant visual preferences, leading to a more solid theoretical foundation for understanding the mechanisms that underlie infants’ responses in common behavioral paradigms. Moreover, our findings will guide future studies that rely on infants' visual preferences to measure cognitive and social processes.

The German 4DSQ demonstrated measurement equivalence to the original Dutch instrument. Hence, it can be considered a valid questionnaire for the screening for mental health problems in primary care.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Mental health problems are highly prevalent in primary care. Validated tools to detect mental disorders in general practice are needed. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) was designed to help GPs differentiating between psychological distress and psychopathological conditions (depression, anxiety, somatization). The aim of the current study was to examine psychometric properties of the 4DSQ in a mental health setting. Reliability, factorial, construct, and criterion validity of the English translation of the 4DSQ were analyzed in an American sample of 159 patients attending a psychotherapy outpatient clinic. Measurement equivalence across languages was determined by analyzing differential item functioning (DIF) and differential test functioning (DTF) in the American sample and a Dutch mental health sample, matched by age and sex. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed all 4DSQ subscales to be unidimensional. All 4DSQ subscales revealed excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha and McDonald omega ≥.90) and high correlations with a symptom distress subscale of an instrument that is commonly used to monitor psychotherapy progress, the Outcome Questionnaire-45. Eight items were flagged with DIF. The Depression subscale was free of DIF. DTF analyses showed an impact of DIF on scale level for the lower cutoff score of the Distress scale. The 4DSQ Distress score was the best predictor of a mood disorder diagnosis and the Anxiety score outperformed other 4DSQ scales to predict an anxiety disorder. In conclusion, the 4DSQ demonstrates excellent reliability and validity in a mental health setting. Further research is needed to determine reliable cutoff values on 4DSQ subscales to predict psychiatric diagnoses.

Individual differences in emotional coping styles are likely to affect information processing on different stages. Repressive coping is assumed to be related to an attentional bias away from threatening information. Possible links to biases in later stages of information processing have not been investigated to date. In the current study, 82 participants completed the visual dot-probe task as a measure of attentional bias and the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT) as a measure of approach/avoidance bias and classified into coping groups via the Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI). Prevalence of attention bias and approach/avoidance bias were compared between groups. Main results revealed a strong approach tendency toward positive stimuli for repressors and a strong avoidance tendency for sensitizers. No group differences were found for approach bias to negative stimuli or for attention bias. The present findings of strong preferential processing of positive stimuli in repressors may be part of broader information processing alterations, which may also be linked to alterations in emotion processing.