Varying expectancies and attention bias in phobic and non-phobic individuals

Abstract

Phobic individuals display an attention bias to phobia-related information and biased expectancies regarding the likelihood of being faced with such stimuli. Notably, although attention and expectancy biases are core features in phobia and anxiety disorders, these biases have mostly been investigated separately and their causal impact has not been examined. We hypothesized that these biases might be causally related. Spider phobic and low spider fearful control participants performed a visual search task in which they specified whether the deviant animal in a search array was a spider or a bird. Shorter reaction times (RTs) for spiders than for birds in this task reflect an attention bias toward spiders. Participants' expectancies regarding the likelihood of these animals being the deviant in the search array were manipulated by presenting verbal cues. Phobics were characterized by a pronounced and persistent attention bias toward spiders; controls displayed slower RTs for birds than for spiders only when spider cues had been presented. More important, we found RTs for spider detections to be virtually unaffected by the expectancy cues in both groups, whereas RTs for bird detections showed a clear influence of the cues. Our results speak to the possibility that evolution has formed attentional systems that are specific to the detection of phylogenetically salient stimuli such as threatening animals; these systems may not be as penetrable to variations in (experimentally induced) expectancies as those systems that are used for the detection of non-threatening stimuli. In sum, our findings highlight the relation between expectancies and attention engagement in general. However, expectancies may play a greater role in attention engagement in safe environments than in threatening environments.

Contrasting reactive and proactive control of emotional distraction.

“…However, they stand in contrast to findings reported by Aue and colleagues (Aue et al, 2013(Aue et al, , 2016, who show that proactive control does not facilitate attention to emotional 26 stimuli when they are goal-relevant. Their participants performed a visual search task in which a discrepant target was either a spider or a bird.…”

The effect of optimistic expectancies on attention bias: Neural and behavioral correlates

“…After the detection period had elapsed, another fixation cross was presented for 0-2000 ms before the next trial appeared (total trial duration: 10 s). This task and design was chosen based on prior work investigating expectancy-attention interactions in our lab 12,20,29,30 . E-Prime 2.0 Professional (Psychology Software Tools, Sharpsburg, PA, USA) was used to present stimuli and record our participants' responses (button presses including reaction times).…”

Surprising Threats Accelerate Evidence Accumulation for Conscious Perception

“…This captures the notion that, even in situations where a threat is unexpected, it is still vital (or, 82 arguably, even more vital) that we can rapidly respond (Den Ouden et al, 2012). Studies on attentional capture 83 and inattentional blindness have found that, while neutral stimuli evoke slower responses when they are 84 unexpected, threatening stimuli elicit the fastest responses in visual search tasks regardless of prior expectations 85 (Aue et al, 2016, Aue et al, 2013. Other research, however, has shown that novelty detection and attentional 86 biases towards threat are enhanced in contexts where threats are unpredictable (Garcia-Garcia et al, 2010, Aue 87 and Okon-Singer, 2015, Bar-Haim et al, 2007, Notebaert et al, 2010.…”