Facilitating a benign attentional bias reduces negative thought intrusions.

Sarra Hayes; Colette R. Hirsch; Andrew Mathews

doi:10.1037/a0018264

Two roads diverged: Distinct mechanisms of attentional bias differentially predict negative affect and persistent negative thought.

Emotion ◽

10.1037/emo0000280 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 17 (5) ◽

pp. 884-894 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Sandersan Onie ◽

Steven B. Most

Keyword(s):

Negative Affect ◽

Attentional Bias ◽

Negative Thought

Download Full-text

Investigating the role of attentional disengagement bias in the tendency, ability and persistence of worry

European Psychiatry ◽

10.1016/s0924-9338(11)71880-6 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 26 (S2) ◽

pp. 169-169

Author(s):

D. Nelson ◽

M. Lopian ◽

N. Bratt

Keyword(s):

Attentional Bias ◽

Reaction Times ◽

Reaction Time Data ◽

Causal Role ◽

Attentional Disengagement ◽

Time Data ◽

Negative Thought ◽

Penn State ◽

State Worry

IntroductionIndividuals with Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) have an attentional bias towards threatening information. It is not known whether this results from facilitated engagement (faster orientation) or delayed disengagement (shifting attention away) from threat. Recent research has developed a new methodology designed to modify attentional disengagement from threat.ObjectivesUsing this paradigm, the present study assessed the causal role of attentional disengagement from threat and its impact on worry.MethodTwenty-four university students scoring below 56 on the Penn-State-Worry-Questionnaire were randomly assigned to either threat disengagement training, or non-threat disengagement training. Training was assessed using threat and non-threat test-trials. All participants then completed a novel worry task, assessing tendency, ability and persistency of worry. The hypothesis was that training to disengage from threat rather than non-threat stimuli would affect tendency, ability or persistence of worry.ResultsAccuracy and test-trial reaction-time data indicated disengagement training was successful; compared to the non-threat disengagement group, the threat disengagement group had faster reaction-times for non-threat valence test-trials, experienced marginally non-significantly more negative intrusions during active worry, and found it significantly more difficult to worry, when required to engage solely with worry without interruption in the worry task.ConclusionIt is possible to manipulate attentional bias to disengage from threat information, leading to fewer negative thought intrusions during active worry and increased difficulty in engaging solely with worry, thus suggesting that impaired disengagement has a causal role in the ability to worry.

Download Full-text

Attentional Bias Among Adolescents Who Stutter: Evidence for a Vigilance–Avoidance Effect

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00090 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 63 (10) ◽

pp. 3349-3363

Author(s):

Naomi H. Rodgers ◽

Jennifer Y. F. Lau ◽

Patricia M. Zebrowski

Keyword(s):

Social Anxiety ◽

Attentional Bias ◽

Preliminary Evidence ◽

Cutoff Score ◽

Attentional Disengagement ◽

Social Stimuli ◽

Facial Stimuli ◽

The Social ◽

Attentional Engagement ◽

High Social Anxiety

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine group and individual differences in attentional bias toward and away from socially threatening facial stimuli among adolescents who stutter and age- and sex-matched typically fluent controls. Method Participants included 86 adolescents (43 stuttering, 43 controls) ranging in age from 13 to 19 years. They completed a computerized dot-probe task, which was modified to allow for separate measurement of attentional engagement with and attentional disengagement from facial stimuli (angry, fearful, neutral expressions). Their response time on this task was the dependent variable. Participants also completed the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) and provided a speech sample for analysis of stuttering-like behaviors. Results The adolescents who stutter were more likely to engage quickly with threatening faces than to maintain attention on neutral faces, and they were also more likely to disengage quickly from threatening faces than to maintain attention on those faces. The typically fluent controls did not show any attentional preference for the threatening faces over the neutral faces in either the engagement or disengagement conditions. The two groups demonstrated equivalent levels of social anxiety that were both, on average, very close to the clinical cutoff score for high social anxiety, although degree of social anxiety did not influence performance in either condition. Stuttering severity did not influence performance among the adolescents who stutter. Conclusion This study provides preliminary evidence for a vigilance–avoidance pattern of attentional allocation to threatening social stimuli among adolescents who stutter.

Download Full-text