Threat ≠ prevention, challenge ≠ promotion: The impact of threat, challenge and regulatory focus on attention to negative stimuli

Abstract

The purpose of the current experiment was to distinguish between the impact of strategic and affective forms of gain- and loss-related motivational states on the attention to negative stimuli. On the basis of the counter-regulation principle and regulatory focus theory, we predicted that individuals would attend more to negative than to neutral stimuli in a prevention focus and when experiencing challenge, but not in a promotion focus and under threat. In one experiment (N = 88) promotion, prevention, threat, or challenge states were activated through a memory task, and a subsequent dot probe task was administered. As predicted, those in the prevention focus and challenge conditions had an attentional bias towards negative words, but those in promotion and threat conditions did not. These findings provide support for the idea that strategic mindsets (e.g., regulatory focus) and hot emotional states (e.g., threat vs. challenge) differently affect the processing of affective stimuli.

Levels of craving influence psychological challenge and physiological reactivity

“…Activated by alcohol related cues, the beliefs drinkers hold about the positive and negative effects of alcohol can influence drinking behaviour (including quantity and frequency), risk of alcohol related harms and the subjective experience of alcohol consumption (see Jones, Corbin, & Fromme, 2001). States of challenge and threat have been linked to differing behavioural approaches to situations in combination with strategic motivation (such as having a promotion or prevention focus, see Sassenberg, Sassenrath, & Fetterman, 2014). One interesting possibility is that positive or negative alcohol expectancies may interact with levels of challenge/threat to predict in-the-moment behaviour.…”

An Integrative Framework of Stress, Attention, and Visuomotor Performance

“…Specifically, attention may be focused on task-relevant cues following a challenge evaluation, but toward task-irrelevant (and potentially threatening) cues, or controlling one’s own actions, following a threat evaluation (Blascovich et al, 2004; Jones et al, 2009). Recent research has begun investigating these propositions (Sassenberg et al, 2015). For example, Frings et al (2014) asked participants to complete a visual search task that involved locating a target appearing in one of two search arrays: one associated with gaining points and another associated with avoiding the loss of points.…”

The influence of motivational and mood states on visual attention: A quantification of systematic differences and casual changes in subjects' focus of attention

“…A multitude of previous research highlights incongruent effects of motivation, emotion, and mood states on the attentional sensitivity modulated by the valence of the stimuli that draw or hold attention (e.g., Derryberry, 1993;Ellenbogen, Schwartzman, Stewart, & Walker, 2002;Rothermund, 2003;Rothermund, Voss, & Wentura, 2008;Rothermund, Wentura, & Bak, 2001;Wentura, Voss, & Rothermund, 2009). Among others, Rothermund, Gast, and Wentura (2011) found an incongruent effect of motivational manipulation on the detection of valent stimuli in a visual search task by replicating previous studies that point to an affective motivational counter-regulation (e.g., De Lange & van Knippenberg, 2007;Rothermund et al, 2008;Sassenberg, Sassenrath, & Fetterman, 2014;Schwager & Rothermund, 2013b;Wentura et al, 2009). Furthermore, Rothermund (2013a, 2014) investigated whether counterregulation in affective processing is triggered by emotions and found out that emotional states have an incongruent effect on attention for valent stimuli as well.…”