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

Abstract

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.

Visual Attention to Dynamic Scenes of Ambiguous Provocation and Children’s Aggressive Behavior

“…Aggressive children’s attention may not be directed to the amused peer because such behavior is consistent with their view of peers as being antisocial and uncaring. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that aggression and anger are negatively associated with attending to information reflecting hostility (Horsley et al, 2010; Wilkowski et al, 2007; Shippell et al, 2003) and extends these earlier findings by providing evidence that inattention to hostile cues is associated with aggression only when children hold negative perceptions of peers.…”

“…It should further be noted that video clips were observed from a third-person perspective. Although this is similar to the procedures used in previous research on attention to and recall of social cues (e.g., Dodge et al, 1997; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992; Wilkowski et al, 2007), SIP may most strongly be tied to aggression when provocation is directed at the participant (Dodge & Frame, 1982). Thus, research in this area could be improved by assessing attention to social cues when the participant is the target of the provocation.…”

“…Cognitive psychologists have suggested that incongruous cues within a scene draw attention as the individual tries to identify or interpret the meaning of the inconsistent object in light of conflicting scene information (Gordon, 2006). Drawing on this research,Wilkowski et al (2007) and Horsley et al (2010) concluded that aggressive children make quick, hostile interpretations of ambiguously aggressive scenes. Once this interpretation is made, their attention is then drawn to non-hostile cues that are inconsistent with that interpretation.…”

“…Using a probe detection task, Schippell et al (2003) found that among early-to-mid-adolescents, reactive aggression and a bias to interpret ambiguous situations as hostile are associated with suppressed attention to socially threatening words. Wilkowski, Robinson, Gordon, and Troop-Gordon (2007) used eye tracking to assess the attention of 45 undergraduate males as they viewed line drawings depicting scenes of ambiguously aggressive acts. Each drawing included a hostile and non-hostile cue.…”

“…Specifically, consistent with Dodge and Tomlin (1987) and Milich and Dodge (1984), prior to a provocation, aggression may be related to greater time until attentionto available social cues. However, once a provocation has occurred and an interpretation of the event has been construed, attention is drawn to cuesinconsistent with that interpretation (Horsley et al, 2010; Wilkowski et al, 2007). …”