Attentional bias for words and faces in social anxiety

Pishyar, Reza; Harris, Lynne M.; Menzies, Ross G.

doi:10.1080/10615800310001601458

Cited by 177 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

144

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been argued that verbal stimuli in studies of information processing biases in SA may be less effective in eliciting fear of social evaluation relative to face stimuli, and may thus have limited ecological validity (e.g., Pishyar et al, 2004). Indeed, for this reason, the use of faces as social threat stimuli has become popular in contemporary research on this topic (Coles & Heimberg, 2005;Foa, Gilboa-Schechtman, Amir, & Freshman, 2000;Lundh & Öst, 1996;Pérez-López & Woody, 2001).…”

Section: Research Focused On Attentional Biases Toward Threatening Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these studies, many have found that individuals with higher levels of SA were quicker to orient toward faces with negative expressions (e.g., anger, disgust) than were nonanxious controls Mogg et al, 2004;Pishyar et al, 2004;Stevens, Rist, & Gerlach, 2009). An additional attentional mechanism that has recently been implicated in SA is difficulty disengaging from threatening faces.…”

Section: Research Focused On Attentional Biases Toward Threatening Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Efforts in recent years to test the prominent theoretical claims of these cognitive models of SA have led to the rapid growth of an extensive body of research supporting the notion that SA is associated with attention biases toward threatening information (e.g., Buckner, Maner & Schmidt, 2010;Chen, Ehlers, Clark, & Mansell, 2002;Gilboa-Schechtman, Foa, & Amir, 1999;Mogg & Bradley, 2002;Mogg, Philippot, & Bradley, 2004;Pishyar, Harris, & Menzies, 2004).…”

Section: List Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Friend or Foe? Memory and Expectancy Biases for Faces in Social Anxiety

Bielak

Moscovitch

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies examining memory biases for threat in social anxiety (SA) have yielded mixed results. In the present study, memory and expectancy biases were tested using a novel face recognition paradigm designed to offset methodological challenges that have hampered previous research. Following a social threat induction, undergraduates with high (n = 40) and low (n = 40) levels of SA viewed a series of neutral faces randomly paired with positive or negative social feedback. Recognition memory was tested for previously encountered faces, and for the categorization of each encoded face as having been associated with negative (mean) or positive (nice) interpersonal statements. For new faces, participants were asked whether the person seemed mean or nice. Results provided no evidence of a general memory bias to threat in SA, but suggested that high SA individuals lack a positive expectancy bias toward new social partners. Implications are considered for cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal models of SA.

show abstract

Section: Research Focused On Attentional Biases Toward Threatening Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Focused On Attentional Biases Toward Threatening Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: List Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Friend or Foe? Memory and Expectancy Biases for Faces in Social Anxiety

Bielak

Moscovitch

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The session lasts approximately 80 minutes, targets are randomly presented on only 50% of trials, and time pressure is present. Additionally, type of material -emotional and social -lifts a level of complexity of experiments (e.g., Fox, Russo, Bowles & Dutton, 2001;Mogg, Philippot & Bradley, 2004;Pishyar, Harris & Menzies, 2004;Mogg & Bradley, 2005;Fox, Russo & Georgiou, 2005;Fajkowska & Krejtz, 2003). Moreover, the high stimulative value of the prolonged visual search task engages individual's capacities of processing stimulation and effectiveness of processing stimulation based on the stimulation reduction or augmentation mechanisms (Strelau, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality and Cognitive Performance

Fajkowska¹,

Eysenck²

2008

Polish Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The two experiments reported here are concerned with the influence of trait anxiety and other individual differences on cognitive performance using the face-in-the-crowd procedure. Participants completed questionnaires (EPQ-R; STAI; Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale) IntroductionA more recent line of research is concerned with the biasing effects of anxiety on cognitive processes, leading to enhanced awareness of threat (see Eysenck, 2006). It is now commonplace to relate anxiety to the attentional resources and working memory (e.g., Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos & Calvo, 2007). However, cognitive psychological accounts of anxiety are not necessarily conclusive and consistent (see Fajkowska & Krejtz, 2007, for a review). We have suggested that promising as an approach to better understanding cognitive functioning in anxiety is to study a group of trait anxious individuals as heterogeneous. Recent research from a number of fields led us to believe, that the heterogeneity of high-anxious group is mainly formed by differentiation in individual properties related to effort and arousal (e.g., Fajkowska & Krejtz, 2006;2007) and by differentiation in style of coping (e.g., Weinberger, Schwartz & Davidson, 1979;Asendorpf & Scherer, 1983;Eysenck, 2000;2006).The purpose of this article is to describe within the frame of the attentional control theory an initial study, which tested the hypothesis that anxious individuals process facial threat and other facial emotional stimuli in a manner associated with their style of coping and the level of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism.The attentional control theory is an approach to anxiety and cognition representing a major development of Eysenck (1979) and Eysenck and Calvo's (1992) processing efficiency theory. The central focus of the processing efficiency theory was on a distinction between effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness refers to the quality of task performance, which is conventionally assessed by various behavioural measures (e.g., speed of performance; accuracy of performance). In contrast, efficiency refers to the relationship between the effectiveness of performance and the effort or processing resources invested in that performance. According to the theory, anxiety generally impairs processing efficiency on complex tasks to a greater extent than performance effectiveness.The original processing efficiency theory rested on two major assumptions. First, worry is the component of state anxiety responsible for effects of anxiety on performance effectiveness and efficiency. Worry or self-preoccupation is characterised by concerns over evaluation and failure and

show abstract

“…Biases towards threatening images have been demonstrated in social phobia (Mogg, Philipott & Bradley 2004;Pishyar, Harris & Menzies, 2004a;Pishyar, Harris & Menzies, 2004b), spider phobia (Mogg & Bradley, 2006) and elevated trait anxiety (Mogg & Bradley, 1999;Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). There is also evidence to suggest that such biases are mediated by the right hemisphere (Fox, 2002;Mogg & Bradley, 2002) but the time taken to detect the probe does not provide an index of where visual attention is initially allocated (Fox, Russo, Bowles & Dutton , 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Noticing spiders on the left: Evidence on attentional bias and spider fear in the inattentional blindness paradigm

Brailsford

Catherwood

Tyson

et al. 2013

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.This is a peer-reviewed, post-print (final draft post-refereeing) version of the following published document: Brailsford DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT

show abstract

Attentional bias for words and faces in social anxiety

Cited by 177 publications

References 21 publications

Friend or Foe? Memory and Expectancy Biases for Faces in Social Anxiety

Friend or Foe? Memory and Expectancy Biases for Faces in Social Anxiety

Personality and Cognitive Performance

Noticing spiders on the left: Evidence on attentional bias and spider fear in the inattentional blindness paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About