Processing bias for aggression words in forensic and nonforensic samples

Smith, Paul M.; Waterman, Mitch

doi:10.1080/02699930302281

Cited by 96 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result has been found in studies using the emotional Stroop task (Eckhardt & Cohen, 1997;Smith & Waterman, 2003;Van Honk, Tuiten, de Haan, van den Hout, & Stam, 2001a;Van Honk et al, 2001b), visual search tasks (Cohen, Eckhardt, & Schagat, 1998;Smith & Waterman, 2004), and spatial cuing paradigms (Smith & Waterman, 2003; see also Wilkowski, Robinson, & Meier, in press). It is important to note that this bias has typically been measured with respect to isolated hostile and non-hostile stimuli rather than integrated visual scenes.…”

Section: Trait Anger Attention and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 52%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tracking the evil eye: Trait anger and selective attention within ambiguously hostile scenes

Wilkowski

Robinson

Gordon

et al. 2007

Journal of Research in Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that trait anger is associated with biases in attention and interpretation, but the temporal relation between these two types of biases remains unresolved. Indeed, two very different models can be derived from the literature. One model proposes that interpretation biases emerge from earlier biases in attention, whereas the other model proposes that hostile interpretations occur quickly, even prior to the allocation of attention to specific cues. Within the context of integrated visual scenes of ambiguously intended harm, the two models make opposite predictions that can be examined using an eye-tracking methodology. The present study (N = 45) therefore tracked participants' allocation of attention to hostile and non-hostile cues in ambiguous visual scenes, and found support for the idea that high anger individuals make early hostile interpretations prior to encoding hostile and non-hostiles cues. The data are important in understanding associations between trait anger and cognitive biases.

show abstract

Section: Trait Anger Attention and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Our hypotheses were based on prior literatures linking individual differences in anger to selective attention (e.g., Smith & Waterman, 2003) and interpretation (e.g., Epps & Kendall, 1995). Importantly, both of these literatures have presented mixed stimulus cues -i.e., both hostile and non-hostile ones.…”

Section: Additional Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracking the evil eye: Trait anger and selective attention within ambiguously hostile scenes

Wilkowski

Robinson

Gordon

et al. 2007

Journal of Research in Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While studies show that aggressive adults exhibit cognitive and emotional biases (Eckhardt & Cohen, 1997), little research in this area has been conducted within the framework of the social information processing model (but see Lim, Day, & Casey, 2011). For example, studies in adults have shown that angry and aggressive individuals: (i) show attentional bias toward aggression-themed words (even when irrelevant to the assigned task) in dot-probe and emotional Stroop tasks (Cohen, Christopher, & Schagat, 1998;Eckhardt & Cohen, 1997;Honk, Tuitena, de Haana, vann de Houtb, & Stamc, 2001;Smith & Waterman, 2003); (ii) tend to expect aggressive outcomes to ambiguous social interactions; and (iii) tend to interpret others' ambiguous (and even neutral) behavior as aggressive (Dill, Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1997). An important strength of the SEIP model is the incorporation of multiple cognitive processes, allowing researchers to identify the most relevant biases with respect to aggressive behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a social emotional information processing assessment for adults (SEIP‐Q)

Coccaro

Fanning

Lee

2016

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An expanded self-report, vignette-based, questionnaire was developed to assess five components in a social emotional information processing model (SEIP: attribution, emotional response, response valuation, outcome expectancy, response efficacy, and response enactment), first in a population-based sample (n ¼ 250) and, second in healthy control participants (n ¼ 50) and in those with DSM-5 Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED: n ¼ 50). SEIP-Q vignettes depict, separately, both overtly aggressive and relationally aggressive as well as socially ambivalent scenarios. This expanded SEIP-Q assessment demonstrated good internal reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity, for all five SEIP components. IED participants differed from healthy controls in all SEIP-Q components. This expanded SEIP-Q assessment is thus proposed as a reliable and valid method for studying the various stages of SEIP in adult human subjects. Aggr. Behav. 43:47-59, 2017.

show abstract

“…As EC is in essence a measure of executive functioning, and as many experimental studies have shown that the lack of executive attention is found for various forms of psychopathology (Dobson & Dozois, 2004;Gotlib & Cane, 1987;Homack & Riccio, 2004;Mathews & Macleod, 1985;Sharma et al, 2001;Smith & Waterman, 2003), it is predicted that low EC should also be associated with them. In fact, empirical studies have shown that low EC is associated with both externalizing problems and internalizing problems (Eisenberg et al, 2001;Lemery et al, 2002;Oldehinkel et al, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%