Attentional capture by emotional faces is contingent on attentional control settings

Abstract

Attentional capture by schematic emotional faces was investigated in two experiments using the flanker task devised by Eriksen and Eriksen (1974). In Experiment 1, participants were presented with a central target (a schematic face that was either positive or negative) flanked by two identical distractors, one on either side (schematic faces that were positive, negative, or neutral). The objective was to identify the central target as quickly as possible. The impact of the flankers depended on their emotional expression. Consistent with a threat advantage hypothesis (negative faces are processed faster and attract more processing resources), responses to positive faces were slower when these were flanked by (response incompatible) negative faces as compared with positive or neutral faces, whereas responses to negative faces were unaffected by the identity of the flankers. Experiment 2 was a standard flanker task with letter stimuli except that the task-neutral flankers were schematic faces that were either positive, negative, or emotionally neutral. In this case, in which faces and emotional expressions were to be ignored, performance seemed entirely unaffected by the faces. This result suggests that attentional capture by emotional faces is contingent on attentional control settings.

Exogenous (automatic) attention to emotional stimuli: a review

“…However, using symbolic material (emoticons/simple drawings), several studies have provided different results up to now. Although, in these studies, emotional stimuli (both negative and positive) elicited behavioral indices of enhanced exogenous attention capture, this effect disappeared when targets consisted of negative symbols (Barratt & Bundesen, 2012; Fenske & Eastwood, 2003; Horstmann, Borgstedt & Heumann, 2006). Since, as is indicated later (see the Visual Category: Words, Faces, Scenes section), there are some potential limitations to using emoticons as emotional stimuli, the results in question should be considered with caution.…”

“…In all cases, they have consisted of simple facial line drawings (i.e., emoticons; Barratt & Bundesen, 2012; Fenske & Eastwood, 2003; Hahn et al, 2006; Horstmann et al, 2006). They all report exogenous attention biases toward emotional symbols, an “angry face advantage” being reported.…”

“…3: 94.5Iconic symbols (≈facial emoticons)3: Neutral, Negative, PositiveCenter at 4.77BehaviorYes, BehaviorNegAttentional resources availability Carretié et al 2011 21/5 (22.73)Digit categorization88.43Scenes3: Neutral, Fearful, Disgusting0Behavior, ERPsYes, Behavior & ERPsDisgusting≈200 ms (anterior P2)(Whole brain strategy). Occipital lobe. Wiens et al 2011 7/7 (24)Perceptual (letter detection)88.5Scenes3: Neutral, Negative0Behavior, ERPsYes, ERPsNeg>400 ms (LPP)Barratt & Bundesen 2012 Exp. 1: 26/14 (21.1).…”

Early attentional bias for negative words when competition is induced

“…Particularly, studies using multiple stimuli have usually reported faster detection of negative stimuli (a negative emotion advantage). Many studies have adopted stimuli of facial expressions in the visual search task (Frischen, Eastwood, & Smilek, 2008;Hahn & Gronlund, 2007;Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001;Reynolds, Eastwood, Partanen, Frischen, & Smilek, 2009) and the flanker task (Barratt & Bundesen, 2012;Fenske & Eastwood, 2003). For example, Öhman et al (2001) reported that search speeds were faster when participants had to detect a negative face among positive crowds than when they had to detect a positive face among negative crowds.…”

Is threat the only modulator of attentional selectivity? Redefining the Easterbrook hypothesis

“…In order to answer this question, we need to turn to the research on visual attention and emotion. Behavioral studies using paradigms such as the flanker task (Fenske and Eastwood, 2003; Barratt and Bundesen, 2012) and the visual search task (Öhman et al, 2001) suggest that threatening stimuli are capable of capturing attention to a greater extent than both positive and neutral stimuli. Neurobiological studies have pinpointed limbic structures such as the amygdala as playing a crucial role in the appraisal of threat (LeDoux, 1998; Öhman, 2005).…”