A cognitive-motivational analysis of anxiety

Mogg, Karin; Bradley, Brendan P.

doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(98)00063-1

Cited by 1,415 publications

(1,385 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

126

Mentioning

1,207

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the angry/neutral face pair the pattern of results just described would be interpreted as initial vigilance to the angry face at 100ms (albeit only a weak trend) followed by avoidance of the stimulus at 500ms. Indeed, the current results showing apparent avoidance of the angry face at 500ms replicate the findings of Bradley et al (1997) with non-anxious individuals and are consistent with Mogg and Bradley's (1998) vigilance/avoidance model of attention to threat with initial vigilance being followed by avoidance. For the happy/neutral face pair the data are suggestive of initial avoidance of the happy face at 100ms followed by vigilance at 500ms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

Cooper

Langton

2006

Behaviour Research and Therapy

192

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies using the dot-probe task now report the existence of attentional biases to angry faces in participants who rate highly on scales of anxiety; however, no equivalent bias has been observed in non-anxious populations, despite evidence to the contrary from studies using other tasks. One reason for this discrepancy may be that researchers using the dot-probe task have rarely investigated any effects which might emerge earlier than 500 ms following presentation of the threat-related faces.Accordingly, in the current study we presented pairs of face stimuli with emotional and neutral expressions and probed the allocation of attention to these stimuli for presentation times of 100ms and 500ms. Results showed that at 100ms there was an attentional bias towards the location of the relatively threatening stimulus (the angry face in angry/neutral pairs and the neutral face in neutral/happy pairs) and this pattern reversed by 500ms. Comparisons of RT scores with an appropriate baseline suggested that the early bias toward threatening faces may actually arise through inhibition of the relatively least threatening member of a face pair rather than through facilitation of, or vigilance towards, the more threatening stimulus. However the mechanisms governing the observed biases are interpreted, these data provide evidence that probing for the location of spatial attention at 500ms is not necessarily indicative of the initial allocation of attention between competing emotional facial stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

Cooper

Langton

2006

Behaviour Research and Therapy

192

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We found (1) all individuals, regardless of loneliness levels, initially attend to stimuli perceived as dangerous (Mogg & Bradley, 1998), and (2) evidence that lonely children in the upper quadrant of the loneliness scores had difficulties disengaging from the threat stimuli. This same pattern of attention processing was evident for children aged 8-12 years of age.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Investigating Hypervigilance for Social Threat of Lonely Children

Qualter¹,

Rotenberg

Barrett³

et al. 2012

J Abnorm Child Psychol

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This series of studies is the first to examine hypervigilance for social threat among lonely children and the first to establish this link using eye-tracking technology. Hypervigilance for social threat was operationalised as hostility to ambiguously motivated social exclusion in a variation of the hostile attribution paradigm (Study 1), scores on the Children's RejectionSensitivity Questionnaire (Study 2), and visual attention to socially threatening stimuli (Study 3). The participants were 185 children (11 years -7 months to 12 years -6 months), 248 children (9 years -4 months to 11 years -8 months) and 147 children (8 years -10 months to 12 years -10 months) in the three studies, respectively. Regression analyses showed that, with depressive symptoms covaried, there were quadratic relations between loneliness and these different measures of hypervigilance to social threat. As hypothesized, only children in the upper range of loneliness demonstrated elevated hostility to ambiguously motivated social exclusion, higher scores on the rejection sensitivity questionnaire, and disengagement difficulties when viewing socially threatening stimuli. We found that very lonely children are hypersensitive to social threat.Key words: Loneliness; Children; Hypervigilance; Social Threat; Rejection; Hypersensitivity, Rejection-sensitivity; Eye movement; Attentional bias.Running Head: LONELINESS AND HYPERVIGILANCE TO SOCIAL THREAT 4 Investigating Hypervigilance for Social Threat of Lonely ChildrenResearchers have examined the social information processing biases that serve to maintain loneliness. One such bias is conceptualized as the 'hypervigilance for social threat hypothesis' (HSTH), where it is argued that rejection sensitivity contributes to behavioral deficiencies (e.g., withdrawal) that undermine the opportunities to develop and maintain positive social relationships (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009). Several studies provide support for the HSTH in adults (Jones & Carver, 1991;Jones, Freemon & Goswick, 1981;Sloan & Solano, 1984), but there has been little work on this in children. Confirming the HSTH during childhood is important because it would indicate that this form of social information bias is evident during development and, therefore, a potential contributor to the persistence of loneliness from childhood through to adulthood, which itself predicts mental and physical health. Loneliness and social information processing biasesLoneliness is an unpleasant state that arises from a discrepancy between the interpersonal relationships people want to have, and those they perceive they currently have (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). Loneliness is not linked to the number of friends that a person has (Young, 1982;Qualter & Munn, 2005). It is a prevalent problem in children, adolescents and adults (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Rotenberg & Hymel, 1999), and is acknowledged in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR: American Psychiatric Association, 2000) because it often causes significant distress a...

show abstract

“…These accounts propose that vigilance for threat occurs in high trait anxious individuals, especially when concurrently experiencing high levels of state anxiety. For example, Mogg and Bradley (1998) proposed that there are two systems involved in anxiety-related stimulus processing: the valence evaluation system (VES) and the goal engagement system (GES).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework Of Selective Attention To Threat In Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GES will continue to allocate resources to current goals if a low threat value has been assigned to the stimulus. Mogg and Bradley (1998) proposed that high levels of trait anxiety are associated with a lowered threshold in the VES for labeling a stimulus as threatening, leading to a bias in the stimulus evaluation process. Consequently, the GES directs attentional resources towards threat stimuli more frequently in individuals with high (vs. low) levels of trait anxiety.…”

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, biases towards threats of an objectively mild threat value will be evident in individuals with elevated trait anxiety. Mogg and Bradley (1998) further proposed a pattern of vigilance-avoidance in anxiety, where the initial allocation of attention to threat is followed by avoidance (attention is directed away from threat at later stages of processing to regulate feelings of negative affect). This pattern of vigilance-avoidance is suggested to maintain anxiety, as it increases initial attention to threat and precludes habituation to these stimuli.…”

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation