Attention is a key concept in many theories of pain perception. A clinically popular idea is that pain is more intense in persons who are hypervigilant for or bias their attention to pain information. So far, evidence for such bias in pain patients as compared to healthy persons is inconclusive. Furthermore, studies investigating the effects of distracting attention away from pain have shown contradictory results. In this review, we present a motivational perspective on attentional processing of pain that accounts for these inconclusive research findings. We argue that pain always has to be considered within a context of goal pursuit. From this perspective, two largely unexplored theoretical assumptions are introduced. First, when pain occurs during the pursuit of a certain goal, it may unintentionally capture attention although it is not relevant for the goal. Whether such unintentional attentional capture happens is not only dependent upon the characteristics of the pain but also on the characteristics of the focal goal. Second, attention to pain and pain-related information might be driven by a focal goal related to pain. Attentional processing of pain information will be particularly enhanced when the focal goal is related to pain management (e.g., attempting to gain control). Future research has to systematically investigate the role of motivation and goal pursuit in the attentional processing of pain-related information. This motivational perspective offers a powerful framework to explain inter-and intra-individual differences in the deployment of attention to painrelated information.

Numerous studies have shown that attention is biased toward threatening events. More recent evidence has also found attentional biases for stimuli that are relevant to the current and temporary goals of an individual. We examined whether goal-relevant information still evokes an attentional bias when this information competes with threatening events. In three experiments, participants performed a dot probe task combined with a separate task that induced a temporary goal. The results of Experiment 1 showed that attention was oriented to goal-relevant pictures in the dot probe task when these pictures were simultaneously presented with neutral or threatening pictures. Whether goal-relevant pictures themselves were threatening or neutral did not influence the results. Experiment 2 replicated these findings in a sample of highly trait-anxious participants. Experiment 3 showed that attention was automatically deployed to stimuli relevant to a temporary goal even in the presence of stimuli that signal imminent and genuine threat (i.e., a colored patch signaling the presentation of an aversive noise). These findings further corroborate the conclusion that an individual's current and temporary goals guide early attentional processes.

Attentional allocation to emotional stimuli is often proposed to be driven by valence and in particular by negativity. However, many negative stimuli are also arousing leaving the question whether valence or arousal accounts for this effect. The authors examined whether the valence or the arousal level of emotional stimuli influences the allocation of spatial attention using a modified spatial cueing task. Participants responded to targets that were preceded by cues consisting of emotional pictures varying on arousal and valence. Response latencies showed that disengagement of spatial attention was slower for stimuli high in arousal than for stimuli low in arousal. The effect was independent of the valence of the pictures and not gender-specific. The findings support the idea that arousal affects the allocation of attention.

The current paper investigates the value and application of a range of physiological and neuroscientific techniques in applied marketing research and consumer science, highlighting new insights from research in social psychology and neuroscience. We review measures of sweat secretion, heart rate, facial muscle activity, eye movements, and electrical brain activity, using techniques including skin conductance, pupillometry, eyetracking, and magnetic brain imaging. For each measure, after a brief explanation of the underlying technique, we illustrate concepts and mechanisms that the measure allows researchers in marketing and consumer science to investigate, with a focus on consumer attitudes and behavior. By providing reviews on recent research that applied these methods in consumer science and relevant related fields, we also highlight methodological and theoretical strengths and limitations, with an emphasis on ecological validity. We argue that the inclusion of physiological and neuroscientific techniques can advance consumer research by providing insights into the often unconscious mechanisms underlying consumer behavior. Therefore, such technologies can help researchers and marketing practitioners understand the mechanisms of consumer behavior and improve predictions of consumer behavior.

It is often assumed that attention is automatically allocated to stimuli relevant to one's actual goals. However, the existing evidence for this idea is limited in several ways. We investigated whether words relevant to a person's current goal influence the orienting of attention even when an intention to attend to the goal-relevant stimuli is not present. In two experiments, participants performed a modified spatial cueing paradigm combined with a second task that induced a goal.The results of the experiments showed that the induced goal led to the orientation of attention to goal-relevant words in the spatial cueing task. This effect was not found for words semantically related to the goal-relevant words. The results provide evidence for motivational accounts of attention, which state that the automatic allocation of attention is guided by the current goals of a person.

Although dealing with pain is a vital goal to pursue, most individuals are also engaged in the pursuit of other goals. The aim of the present experiment was to investigate whether attentional bias to pain signals is inhibited when one is pursuing a concurrent salient but nonpain task goal. Attentional bias to pain signals was measured in pain-free volunteers (n=63) using a spatial cueing task with pain cues and neutral cues. The pursuit of a concurrent goal was manipulated by including additional trials in which a digit appeared at the middle of the screen. Half of the participants (goal group) were instructed to name these additional stimuli aloud. In order to increase the affective-motivational value of this non-pain-related goal, monetary reward and punishment were made contingent upon the performance of this task. Participants of the control group did not perform the additional task. As predicted, the results show attentional bias to pain signals in the control group, but not in the goal group. This indicates that attentional bias to signals of impending pain is inhibited when one is engaged in the pursuit of another salient but nonpain goal. The results of this study underscore a motivational view on attention to pain, in which the pursuit of multiple goals, including nonpain goals, is taken into account.

No abstract

Clinical evidence suggests that a persistent search for solutions for chronic pain may bring along costs at a cognitive, affective and behavioural level. According to one hypothesis, attempts to control pain fuel hypervigilance and prioritize attention towards pain-related information. This hypothesis was investigated in an experiment with 41 healthy volunteers. Prioritization of attention towards a signal for pain was measured using an adaptation of the visual search paradigm. A previously neutral stimulus (Conditioned Stimulus, CS+) became a signal for pain (Unconditioned Stimulus: US, electrocutaneous stimulus at tolerance level) using a classical conditioning procedure. Intermixed with the visual search task participants also performed another task. In the pain control group, participants were informed that correct and fast responses on trials of this second task would result in an avoidance of the US. In the comparison group, the performance of the second task was not instrumental in controlling pain. Results showed that in the pain control group attention was more prioritized towards the CS+ than in the comparison group.Results are discussed in terms of a neuropsychological model of attention to pain. Conversely, the willingness to experience pain without the need to control, as measured by the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire [McGuire, in press], is