1987
DOI: 10.1097/00005053-198703000-00002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anxiety and the Span of Apprehension

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
0
1

Year Published

1988
1988
2000
2000

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…But these studies used test anxiety conditions, thus possibly introducing the bias of a high worrying component. Also in seeming contrast to our findings, Harris and Hanish (1987) found a reduced 'span of apprehension' on a visual attention task in high trait anxiety subjects. However, span of apprehension was measured by the ability of subjects to detect a target letter amidst distractor letters.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…But these studies used test anxiety conditions, thus possibly introducing the bias of a high worrying component. Also in seeming contrast to our findings, Harris and Hanish (1987) found a reduced 'span of apprehension' on a visual attention task in high trait anxiety subjects. However, span of apprehension was measured by the ability of subjects to detect a target letter amidst distractor letters.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…But the strong effects of stimulus complexity, reaction time acceleration by repetition as well as group differences between the panic and the depression group (see below) contradict this opinion. In accordance with our results, the study of Harris & Hanish (1987) examining a non-clinical group of participants with high and low scores of anxiety also failed to find effects of physical activation on the results of the span of apprehension task. Moreover, arousal not only seems not to influence general attentional capacity, but does not influence the interference effect for threatening words in panic disorder patients (McNally, Riemann, Louro, Lukach & Kim, 1992).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%