Automatic Affective Appraisal of Words

White, Murray J.

doi:10.1080/026999396380330

Cited by 31 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, affect appears to be processed by top-down networks. Similar results have been found when emotional faces were used in a modified Posner cueing paradigm (Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, 2001) and when threat-related words and faces were used in a variation of the Stroop task (White, 1996). Moreover, examining the affective pronunciation priming task, De Houwer and Randell (2002) observed affective priming only when attention was focused on the primes.…”

Section: The Affective Automaticity Hypothesissupporting

confidence: 62%

On the interdependence of cognition and emotion

Storbeck

Clore

2007

Cognition & Emotion

296

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affect and cognition have long been treated as independent entities, but in the current review we suggest that affect and cognition are in fact highly interdependent. We open the article by discussing three classic views for the independence of affect. These are (i) the affective independence hypothesis, that emotion is processed independently from cognition, (ii) the affective primacy hypothesis, that evaluative processing precedes semantic processing, and (iii) the affective automaticity hypothesis, that affectively potent stimuli commandeer attention and evaluation is automatic. We argue that affect is not independent from cognition, that affect is not primary to cognition, nor is affect automatically elicited. The second half of the paper discusses several instances of how affect influences cognition. We review experiments showing affective involvement in perception, semantic activation, and attitude activation. We conclude that one function of affect is to regulate cognitive processing.

show abstract

Section: The Affective Automaticity Hypothesissupporting

confidence: 62%

On the interdependence of cognition and emotion

Storbeck

Clore

2007

Cognition & Emotion

296

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of our first four experiments suggest that processes involved in the disengagement from threat distinguish high and low state-anxious people. Threatening stimuli that appear in unattended locations do not attract visual attention any more than neutral stimuli (Fox, 1994;White, 1996), but once detected, they are processed more deeply and take longer to disengage from than neutral stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In light of the evidence reviewed previously showing that the presence of threat-related stimuli in unattended locations does not involuntarily draw attention (Fox, 1994;White, 1996), it is predicted that attentional bias toward threat may be due to defective disengagement from threatening stimuli. Thus, we predict a difference on the disengage component of attention (i.e., invalidly cued trials), which should be stronger for high state-anxious participants than for low state-anxious participants.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety?

Fox

Russo²,

Bowles³

et al. 2001

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

1,280

107

1,277

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biases in information processing undoubtedly play an important role in the maintenance of emotion and emotional disorders. In an attentional cueing paradigm, threat words and angry faces had no advantage over positive or neutral words (or faces) in attracting attention to their own location, even for people who were highly state-anxious. In contrast, the presence of threatening cues (words and faces) had a strong impact on the disengagement of attention. When a threat cue was presented and a target subsequently presented in another location, high state-anxious individuals took longer to detect the target relative to when either a positive or a neutral cue was presented. It is concluded that threat-related stimuli affect attentional dwell time and the disengage component of attention, leaving the question of whether threat stimuli affect the shift component of attention open to debate.

show abstract

“…Anderson & Phelps, 2001;Zajonc, 1980). With regard to lexical stimuli, this possibility may be considered unlikely because language has developed only recently in human evolution, hence it could be argued that both hemispheres may be unable to extract the semantics of language without prior lexical analysis (White, 1996). On the other hand, some researchers have in fact reported brain asymmetries in the processing of emotional words that were presented below the subjective identification threshold (Làvadas, Cimatti, Del Pesce, & Tuozzi, 1993;Wexler, Warrenburg, Schwartz, & Janer, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociating Prelexical and Postlexical Processing of Affective Information in the Two Hemispheres: Effects of the Stimulus Presentation Format

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a lexical decision task, the authors investigated whether brain asymmetries in the detection of emotionally negative semantic associations arise only at a perceptually discriminative stage at which lexical analysis is accurate or can already be found at crude and incomplete levels of perceptual representation at which word-nonword discrimination is based solely on guessing. Emotionally negative and neutral items were presented near perceptual threshold in the left and right visual hemifields. Word-nonword discrimination performance as well as the bias to classify a stimulus as a ''word'' (whether or not it actually is a word) were assessed for a normal, horizontal stimulus presentation format (Experiment 1) and for an unusual, vertical presentation format (Experiment 2). Results show that while the two hemispheres are equally able to detect affective semantic associations at a prelexical processing stage (both experiments), the right hemisphere is superior at a postlexical, perceptually discriminative stage (Experiment 2). Moreover, the findings suggest that only an unusual, nonoverlearned stimulus presentation format allows adequate assessment of the right hemisphere's lexical-semantic skills. © 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

show abstract

Automatic Affective Appraisal of Words

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

On the interdependence of cognition and emotion

On the interdependence of cognition and emotion

Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety?

Dissociating Prelexical and Postlexical Processing of Affective Information in the Two Hemispheres: Effects of the Stimulus Presentation Format

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About