Abstract
Threatening stimuli are often thought to have sufficient potency to bias attention, relative to neutral stimuli. Researchers and clinicians opt for frequently used paradigms to measure such bias, such as the dot-probe task. Bias to threat in the dot-probe task is indicated by a congruency effect i.e., faster responses on congruent trials than incongruent trials (also referred to as attention capture). However, recent studies have found that such congruency effects are small and suffer from poor internal reliability. One explanation to low effect sizes and poor reliability is carryover effects of threat – greater congruency effects on trials following a congruent trial relative to trials following an incongruent trial. In the current study, we investigated carryover effects of threat with two large samples of healthy undergraduate students who completed a typical dot-probe task. Although we found a small congruency effect for fearful faces (Experiment 1, n = 241, d = 0.15) and a reverse congruency effect for threatening images, (Experiment 2, n = 82, d = 0.11) whereas no carryover effects for threat were observed in either case. Bayesian analyses revealed moderate to strong evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. We conclude that carryover effects for threat do not influence attention bias for threat.
Highlights
Threatening stimuli are often thought to have sufficient potency to bias attention, relative to neutral stimuli
The dot appears at the location of the threatening cue, whereas on incongruent trials, the dot appears at the location of the neutral cue
While congruency effects are often assessed by the dot-probe task (Kruijt et al, 2018; Mogg et al, 2017), they have come under scrutiny for poor internal and test-retest reliability (Schmukle, 2005; Staugaard, 2009)
Summary
Threatening stimuli are often thought to have sufficient potency to bias attention, relative to neutral stimuli. Bias to threat in the dot-probe task is indicated by a congruency effect i.e., faster responses on congruent trials than incongruent trials ( referred to as attention capture). The threatening cue biases attention to a greater extent than the neutral cue, as shown by faster response times (RTs) for congruent trials relative to incongruent trials (for reviews, see (Carretié, 2014; Imhoff et al, 2019). This effect is known as a congruency effect, or attentional capture by threat or attentional bias to threat. Identifying new sources of potential variation — like carryover effects — in the dot-probe task is beneficial because they could be accounted for in future studies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
