焦虑注意偏向.pdf

AbstractCognitive views on anxiety have proposed that attentional biases towards threatening information in high trait anxious individuals play an important role in the maintenance of anxiety and may even cause the development of clinical anxiety dis- orders. However, the precise nature of these attentional biases is under debate. In a pictorial version of the dot probe task, two accounts of attention to threat were con- trasted and the components of attention involved in orienting to threat were assessed. Overall, the results support the view that all individuals orient to highly threatening pictures, with high trait anxious individuals orienting more strongly to moderately threatening pictures than the low trait anxious individuals. Attentional bias to threat in high trait anxious individuals was caused by attentional disengagement from threat. These results are discussed in relation to cognitive models of attention to threat.KeywordsAttention Æ Attentional bias Æ Trait anxiety Æ Threat Æ Dot probeIntroductionA core element of cognitive theories of anxiety (Beck, Emery, Eysenck, 1992; Williams, Watts, MacLeod, Williams et al., 1997).Using cognitive-experimental task like the modified stroop and dot probe task, researchers have demonstrated differential attentive processing of threat in high trait anxious individuals (HTA) compared to low trait anxious individuals (LTA). However, the precise nature of attentional biases in HTA individuals is still under debate. Two issues seem particularly important for the understanding of differential attention toErnst H. W. Koster ( Mogg 1997). Shifted attentional function accounts of attentional biases have emphasized that attention to highly threatening information is an adaptive process, present in both HTA and LTA individuals. These models propose that HTA already orient to moderate threat, whereas LTA will only orient to stimuli with high threat levels. These models have been contrasted in studies using the visual dot probe task (MacLeod, Mathews, Wilson Koster, Crombez, Verschuere, Yiend Wilson Yiend Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, ran- ge = 18–22 years) participated for course credit. Each anxiety group contained 21participants. Participants were notified that some of the pictures in the experiment were aversive, and that they could withdraw at any time. All participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision.MaterialsWe selected the stimuli from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, e.g. ‘‘mutilated face’’), five moderate threat (MT; e.g. ‘‘man with knife’’), and twenty neutral (N) pictures (e.g. ‘‘hair dryer’’) were selected1. Another 28 neutral pictures were selected for the practice and buffer trials. Pictures had a mean height of 4.6 cm and a mean width of 6.5 cm. In line with the procedure of Mogg et al. (2000), three types of stimulus pairs were created: N–N, MT–N, and HT–N picture pairs. Additionally HT–HT trial types were createdinordertopreventathreat-avoidantmonitoringstrategyoftheupperorthelower location of the screen. Otherwise, participants might focus on one location of the screen and immediately shift away attention on detection of threat (see Koster et al., 2004). The probe detection task was programmed and presented using the INQUISIT Millisecond software package (Inquisit, 2001) on a S710 Compaq Deskpro computer with a 72 Hz, 17-inch colour monitor.ProcedureParticipants were seated in front of a computer screen at a distance of approximately 60 cm to perform the probe detection task. The task consisted of 12 practice, 2 buffer,1See Koster et al. (2004) for more detail on selection of the affective pictures. The exact IAPS pictures can be provided by the authors upon request.Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:635–643637123and 80 test trials. During the test phase, each of the stimulus pairs (N–N, MT–N, HT–N,HT–HT) was presented 20 times. Each trial started with a fixation cross that was pre- sented for 1000 ms in the middle of the screen. Then, two pictures appeared, one 2.2 cm above and one 2.2 cm below, the centre of the screen for 500 ms. Immediately after the offset of the two pictures a small dot probe (5 mm width) was presented at the spatial location of one of the pictures. Participants were asked to press one of two buttons on a standard keyboard as quickly and accurately as possible to indicate the probe position. Every picture was presented four times, each time in a different picture location-probelocation configuration. The trials were presented in a new random order for each par- ticipant. In a manipulation check at the end of the experiment, participants were asked to rate the valence and arousal of the HT and MT pictures using the Self-assessment manikin (Lang, 1980). Due to time constraints, half of the participants rated 5 of the HT and the 5 MT pictures. The other half of the participants rated the remaining 10 HT pictures. The number of HTA and LTA individuals rating each picture set was 。