Both optimism bias and reward-related attention bias have crucial implications for well-being and mental health. Yet, the extent to which the two biases interact remains unclear because, to date, they have mostly been discussed in isolation. Examining interactions between the two biases can lead to new directions in neurocognitive research by revealing their underlying cognitive and neurophysiological mechanisms. In the present article, we suggest that optimism bias and reward-related attention bias mutually enforce each other and recruit a common underlying neural network. Key components of this network include specific activations in the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex with connections to the amygdala. We further postulate that biased memory processes influence the interplay of optimism and reward-related attention bias. Studying such causal relations between cognitive biases reveals important information not only about normal functioning and adaptive neural pathways in maintaining mental health, but also about the development and maintenance of psychological diseases, thereby contributing to the effectiveness of treatment.

length: 250 words AbstractCognitive emotion regulation strategies are important components of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Additionally, up-regulation and difficulties in the down-regulation of negative feelings are associated with mental disorders. However, little is known about the lasting effects of cognitive emotion regulation strategies on emotional experience and associated neural activation. Therefore, this study investigated immediate and prolonged effects of emotion regulation using cognitive reappraisal and distraction on subjective report and its neural correlates. Twenty-seven healthy females took part in a 2-day functional magnetic resonance imaging study. They were instructed to either up-regulate or down-regulate their negative feelings using a situation-focused cognitive reappraisal strategy, to distract themselves by imagining a specific neutral situation, or to passively look at repeatedly presented aversive and neutral pictures. Re-exposure to the same stimuli without a regulation instruction was conducted one day later. Self-reported negative feelings and blood-oxygen-level-dependent responses served as main outcome variables. As expected, the results show successful immediate up-or down-regulation of negative feelings by cognitive reappraisal and down-regulation of negative feelings by distraction. Furthermore, these changes in negative feelings were correlated with amygdala activation. A lasting effect on emotional experience associated with stronger ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation was found for down-regulation of negative feelings via cognitive reappraisal. Compared to distraction, down-regulation via cognitive reappraisal led to reduced negative feelings and stronger dorso-and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex responses one day later. While cognitive reappraisal and distraction are both effective strategies during active regulation, only cognitive reappraisal had a lasting effect. These findings might have implications for CBT.

Optimism bias and positive attention bias have important highly similar implications for mental health but have only been examined in isolation. Investigating the causal relationships between these biases can improve the understanding of their underlying cognitive mechanisms, leading to new directions in neurocognitive research and revealing important information about normal functioning as well as the development, maintenance, and treatment of psychological diseases. In the current project, we hypothesized that optimistic expectancies can exert causal influences on attention deployment. To test this causal relation, we conducted two experiments in which we manipulated optimistic and pessimistic expectancies regarding future rewards and punishments. In a subsequent visual search task, we examined participants’ attention to positive (i.e., rewarding) and negative (i.e., punishing) target stimuli, measuring their eye gaze behavior and reaction times. In both experiments, participants’ attention was guided toward reward compared with punishment when optimistic expectancies were induced. Additionally, in Experiment 2, participants’ attention was guided toward punishment compared with reward when pessimistic expectancies were induced. However, the effect of optimistic (rather than pessimistic) expectancies on attention deployment was stronger. A key characteristic of optimism bias is that people selectively update expectancies in an optimistic direction, not in a pessimistic direction, when receiving feedback. As revealed in our studies, selective attention to rewarding versus punishing evidence when people are optimistic might explain this updating asymmetry. Thus, the current data can help clarify why optimistic expectancies are difficult to overcome. Our findings elucidate the cognitive mechanisms underlying optimism and attention bias, which can yield a better understanding of their benefits for mental health.

No abstract