Emotional modulation of the attentional blink by pleasant and unpleasant pictures.

This article was downloaded by: [Adams State University] On: 17 November 2014, At: 13:56 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of General Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20

Emotional Modulation of the Attentional Blink by Pleasant and Unpleasant Pictures a

b

Beatrice M. de Oca , Marie Villa , Miguel a

Cervantes & Tyler Welbourne a

a

California State University Channel Islands

b

University of Montana , Missoula Published online: 20 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Beatrice M. de Oca , Marie Villa , Miguel Cervantes & Tyler Welbourne (2012) Emotional Modulation of the Attentional Blink by Pleasant and Unpleasant Pictures, The Journal of General Psychology, 139:4, 289-314, DOI: 10.1080/00221309.2012.708681 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2012.708681

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:56 17 November 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of General Psychology, 2012, 139(4), 289–314 C 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright


Emotional Modulation of the Attentional Blink by Pleasant and Unpleasant Pictures BEATRICE M. DE OCA California State University Channel Islands MARIE VILLA University of Montana, Missoula MIGUEL CERVANTES TYLER WELBOURNE California State University Channel Islands

ABSTRACT. When shown a rapid series of images, attention to a second target that follows in short proximity to a first is diminished—a phenomenon sometimes called an “attentional blink.” Three experiments compared detection of motivationally relevant pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral pictures when they appeared as the second target following a neutral (Experiment 1), unpleasant (Experiment 2) and pleasant (Experiment 3) picture target. The second target followed at lags of 2, 3 or 8 pictures. In all three experiments, detection of neutral pictures was reduced at lags 2 and 3, indicative of an attentional blink. In contrast, unpleasant pictures were detected more than neutral pictures at lags 2 and 3. Unexpectedly, pleasant pictures not only resisted the attentional blink, but they were detected substantially more than other pictures at all lags in all three experiments. Overall, the experiments support the idea that motivationally relevant stimuli preferentially capture attention more than motivationally neutral stimuli. Keywords: attentional blink, emotion, RSVP, visual attention

EMOTIONS PLAY A VITAL ROLE in informing individuals of the significance of particular stimuli over others, a feature that seems to offer substantial benefit Special thanks are due to Charlotte Haskell, Neggin Keshavarzian, Casey Nixon, Marilyn Orman, Lauren Rivera, and Samuel Van Buskirk for their assistance with study preparation and data collection on Experiments 2 and 3. Address correspondence to Beatrice M. de Oca, Psychology Program, California State University Channel Islands, One University Drive, Camarillo, CA 93012, USA; beatrice. [email protected] (e-mail). 289


290

The Journal of General Psychology

¨ for survival (Ohman & Mineka, 2001). The preferential allocation of attentional resources toward threatening emotional stimuli has been found with several different procedures and types of stimuli (e.g. Yiend, 2010; Cisler, Bacon & Williams, 2009). To study the temporal aspects of attention at one visual location, researchers have used the rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) procedure. In this procedure, 8–10 stimuli are presented per second. When participants are asked to attend to a specific type of target (letters, numbers, faces, etc.) within the rapid stream of non-target distractors, they are likely to miss a subsequent target when it follows in close temporal proximity to the first, almost as if the attention afforded the first target (T1) interferes with detection of the second target (T2). This has been called an “attentional blink” (Raymond, Shapiro & Arnell, 1992). Consistent with other research on the modulation of attention by emotion, the emotional significance of the T2 has been shown to influence the magnitude of the attentional blink. Generally, emotional stimuli are somewhat resistant to the attentional blink and are more likely to be detected than emotionally neutral stimuli. For example, pleasant and unpleasant words presented as T2 are more likely to be perceived than neutral words (Keil & Ihssen, 2004). Stimuli conditioned to be aversive are also more likely to be detected as a T2 than non-aversive stimuli (Smith, Most, Newsome & Zald, 2006). Pleasant and unpleasant T1 words and pictures can also enhance the subsequent attentional blink (Ihssen & Keil, 2009), decreasing detection of a second target. Emotional stimuli are thought to facilitate neural activity through strong neural connections to a variety of brain areas (eg., Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 1997; Lane, Chua & Dolan, 1999). This added activity may serve to counteract the suppression of incoming stimuli thought to be caused by stimuli earlier in the stream (Raymond et al., 1992; Olivers & Meeters, 2008). Emotional targets may also limit the detection of neutral targets by capturing and holding information (Arnell, Killman & Fijavz, 2007; Fox, Russo, Bowles & Dutton, 2001; Ciesielski, Armstrong, Zald, & Olatunji, 2010) such that an emotional T1 would hold attention longer than a neutral T1 and thereby lead to a larger attentional blink of T2. Interestingly, emotional stimuli in the RSVP task seem to influence attention both anterogradely and retroactively. That is, emotional T2 stimuli can also interfere with perception of the T1 as was seen when angry faces resulted in a “backward blink” of the happy faces that preceded them (de Jong, Koster, van Wees & Martens, 2009). Even when participants are instructed to ignore them, emotional stimuli presented immediately after an anticipated target can decrease the likelihood of detecting the target (Most & Junge, 2008). Because fear-relevant stimuli may be particularly salient to individuals experiencing anxiety (e.g. Macleod & Mathews, 1988) and are thought to help maintain anxiety in people suffering from such disorders (Mathews, 1990), researchers have used the RSVP task to examine how anxiety influences target detection. The results of such research have been mixed. Participants high in trait anxiety show enhanced detection of fearful faces when these have been used as a T2 stimulus (Fox, Russo


de Oca et al.

291

& Georgiou, 2005). Barnard, Ramponi, Batye, and Mackintosh (2005) have also reported enhanced attention to threat distractors among participants high in trait and state anxiety, but only at one time point from the target (330 ms). Spider phobics also detected pictures of spiders more than other pictures (Trippe, Hewig, Heydel, Hecht, & Miltner, 2007). However, social anxiety does not seem to influence detection of emotional facial expressions (de Jong, et al., 2009; de Jong & Martens, 2007). An additional issue is the relative ability of pleasant and unpleasant stimuli to capture attention. In one relevant study, both happy and angry facial expressions that followed a neutral T1 (consisting of a painted letter) were more likely to be detected than neutral faces (de Jong et al., 2009). However, when both T1 and T2 stimuli consisted of either happy or angry faces, then angry faces were detected more often as a T2. Furthermore, the angry face T1 also led to reduced perception of the happy face T2 (de Jong & Martens, 2007). Together, these results suggest that when there is competition between threatening and non-threatening stimuli, threatening stimuli are preferentially attended to (de Jong et al., 2009). Otherwise, both pleasant and unpleasant emotional stimuli may capture attention. One explanation for prioritization of threat detection is that it would facilitate ¨ survival (Ohman & Mineka, 2001). This functional evolutionary perspective builds on Preparedness Theory (Seligman, 1971) and accounts for the over-representation of potentially deadly objects and situations (e.g., snakes and heights) among the specific phobias. Similarly, enhanced acquisition and expression of defensive reactions to threat-related stimuli is common among non-human animals including rhesus monkeys (Cook & Mineka, 1989), rats (ie. Wallace & Rosen, 2000; Blanchard & Blanchard, 1971), and squirrels (Owings & Coss, 1977). Although it makes evolutionary sense for stimuli like emotional facial expressions or threatening objects to involuntarily capture attention due to their ¨ ¨ association with imminent danger (Ohman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001; Ohman & Mineka, 2001), other stimuli also seem capable of facilitated attention capture. For instance, sexually arousing distractors decrease the likelihood of detecting a subsequent target stimulus (Arnell, Killman & Fijavz, 2007), suggesting they are afforded more attentional resources than neutral stimuli. This has been found even when participants had a financial incentive to detect the target and were told what the target would be in order provide them a focused attentional set. While such an attentional set improved performance on trials with negative and neutral emotional distractors, attention to the sexually arousing distractors was unaffected (Most, Smith, Cooter, Levy & Zald, 2007). In other studies using pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral distractors, emotional distractors impaired later detection of neutral targets more than neutral distractors, but erotic pictures were more distracting than unpleasant pictures of violence and injury (Piech et al., 2011; Ciesielski et al., 2010). One possible explanation is that sexually arousing images are especially capable of attention capture due to their relevance for reproduction. Another is that the high degree of arousal inherent in such images enhances the attentional blink


292


to the subsequent target stimulus (Most et al., 2007). Consistent with the interpretation that stimulus arousal drives attention in the RSVP task, Anderson (2005) reported that highly arousing positive words were resistant to the attentional blink. Another characteristic shared by sexually arousing stimuli and emotional stimuli is that both are motivationally relevant. Based on research using visual search, Fox, Griggs & Mouchlianitis (2007) have suggested that an item’s relevance to the individual may influence its ability to preferentially capture attention. While threatening stimuli are certainly relevant to an individual, positively valenced stimuli may also be relevant in terms of survival, reproduction, social standing, or relationships. Consistent with this idea, Ford, Tamir, Brunye, Shirer, Mahoney & Taylor (2010) found that participants in an angry mood were more likely to gaze at pleasant information corresponding to reward (including pictures of erotic couples and waterfalls) rather than threat, presumably because anger stems from limited access to a desired goal (Frijda, 1986) and reflects a form of approach motivation. Attention to reward rather than threat cues among angry participants is consistent with an interpretation based on approach motivation. Ford and colleagues (2010) also found that participants induced to experience fear rather than anger attended to threatening imagery more than rewarding imagery, while participants in an induced excitement condition attended more to rewarding images. These results suggest that the effects of emotion on visual attention are influenced by an individual’s motivational state. Other researchers found similar results when they used jealousy rather than the usual fear-provoking stimuli. Jealousy was triggered in some of the participants when their romantic partners rated the attractiveness of others. Feelings of jealousy increased the disruptiveness of threatening distracting pictures but not other types of distractors in a group of female participants (Most, Laurenceau, Graber, Belcher, & Smith, 2010). If jealousy can be related to fearing the loss of the relationship and its benefits (Harris & Darby, 2010), then this study demonstrated that those participants who experienced the greatest such fear were most distracted by negative pictures. Also consistent with a role for motivational relevance is that hungry participants preferentially detected food-related cues in a dot probe task measuring spatial attention (Mogg, Bradley, Hyare & Lee, 1998) as well as in an RSVP task (Piech, Pastorino & Zald, 2010). Overall, a variety of research supports the idea that motivation is an important factor in determining what types of stimuli are attended to. In the experiments that follow, we will compare the ability of motivationally relevant pleasant items to resist the attentional blink relative to threatening and neutral items. Consistent with the above research demonstrating that pleasant as well as threatening stimuli can preferentially capture attention, we expect that threatening and pleasant, motivationally important pictures will be able to capture attention better than neutral pictures.

de Oca et al.

293


Experiment 1 The goals of the present research are to compare modulation of the attentional blink by pleasant and unpleasant motivationally relevant stimuli; to use pictures rather than words or facial expressions as stimuli; and to examine the role of non-clinical anxiety in the modulation of the attentional blink by threatening pictures. In order to explore the role of motivationally relevant stimuli, we used pleasant pictures of babies, erotic couples, money, and gold or jewelry and threatening pictures of snakes, injured people, guns, and knives. In an effort to better understand the dynamics of attention capture by pleasant images as a category, we have included non-erotic imagery within the pleasant category. This contrasts with other studies that have relied exclusively on erotic or romantic scenes as examples of highly arousing, pleasant pictures (Most et al., 2007; Ciesielski et al., 2010; Piech et al., 2011). We expected that since this experiment used only one target per RSVP stream, no competition between emotional pictures would occur on a single trial. In contrast to a strict evolutionary interpretation that fear-relevant ¨ stimuli better capture attention (Ohman & Mineka, 2001), we predict that there will be similar attenuation of the attentional blink among both threatening and pleasant targets relative to the blink seen with neutral targets. Such results would be consistent with the view that motivational relevance drives attention. Method Participants Participants consisted of 34 volunteer undergraduate psychology students (3 males) of California State University Channel Islands who were offered course credit for their participation. Participants provided informed consent prior to their participation in the study. Apparatus and Stimulus Materials Stimuli were shown on a 19-inch computer screen with a 60-MHz refresh rate. All experiment materials were presented using Super Lab 4.07b (Cedrus Corporation, San Pedro, CA, USA). As T1 stimuli, we used pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) that were of neutral valence (M = 6.1, SD = .9) and low arousal (M = 3.9, SD = .7). Please see the appendix for a list of the IAPS picture numbers. The T2 stimuli were either threatening, pleasant, or neutral pictures. The threatening category included pictures of snakes, injury, guns, and knives. The pleasant category included erotic pictures of heterosexual couples, babies, money, and gold and/or jewelry. The pictures of babies did not show frontal views of the infant face as previous research has already shown that baby faces preferentially capture attention (Brosch, Sander, & Scherer, 2007). The neutral category included


294


pictures of landscapes, trees, couches, and lamps. Six exemplars of each item were used. Target pictures were collected from various internet resources and were rated by a separate group of participants for both valance (unpleasant/pleasant) and arousal (not at all arousing/highly arousing) on a 9-point scale (1–9). The mean valence ratings were 7.5, 6.9, 7.2, and 5.9 for the pleasant pictures of babies, sex, money, and jewelry/gold, respectively. For the threatening pictures of snakes, injury, guns, and knives, the mean valence ratings were 2.9, 2.5, 3.0, and 2.5. For the neutral pictures of landscapes, trees, couches, and lamps the mean valence ratings were 5.7, 4.1, 4.1, and 4.1. Mean arousal ratings for the pleasant pictures of babies, sex, money, and jewelry/gold were 3.7, 7.2, 6.3, and 5.2. For the threatening pictures of snakes, injury, guns, and knives the mean arousal ratings were 6.7, 6.3, 6.1, and 6.7. For the neutral pictures of landscapes, trees, couches and lamps the mean arousal ratings were 4.7, 3.8, 3.4, and 3.5. We used a total of 130 filler photographs, all from IAPS (valence M = 5.7, SD = 1.0; arousal M = 3.8, SD = .8). All photos were sized to 720 × 531 pixels, presented in black and white, and were matched for brightness. All fillers were presented upside down, and T1 and T2 targets were presented right-side up.

RSVP Task There were always two targets (T1, T2) and 14 filler pictures in each trial. Five, six, or seven pictures preceded the T1. The number of pictures between T1 and T2 was 1, 2, or 7 pictures so that the T2 occurred at lags of 2, 3, or 8. Each trial consisted of the rapid serial presentation of the 16 stimuli, each presented for 120 ms. Six trials were shown for each unique lag and picture item combination (ie. 6 trials with baby pictures at each lag) for a total of 216 trials overall. Trials were presented in random order.

Procedure Participants were tested in a small room with four computer stations. Participants first read and signed a consent form. Once seated, instructions were displayed on the screen. Participants were instructed to look for photographs that were correctly oriented. At the end of each trial, participants indicated whether or not they saw any photographs that were oriented right-side up and if so, they identified the item by selecting the item from a list. Four practice trials using other neutral stimuli preceded the experiment. At the end of the RSVP task, each participant was asked to rate how important and threatening (not at all/ very) each T2 item was on a 7-point scale (1–7). Immediately after this, participants completed the State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Speilberger, 1983).

de Oca et al.

295


Results Data Preparation Data from 29 participants was available for analysis after eliminating data files with evidence of equipment malfunction or failure of participants to follow the instructions. Scores on the trait portion of the STAI were used to create two groups of participants with either high- or low-trait anxiety. The mean trait anxiety score was 48.3. Those with scores at or below 48 formed the low trait anxiety group (n = 14) and those with scores at or above 49 formed the high trait anxiety group (n = 15). The mean state anxiety score for the study participants included in the analyses was 43.5. Mean trait anxiety scores for college students reported by Speilberger (1983) are 38 and 40 for men and women, respectively. The mean state anxiety scores for college students are 36 and 39 for men and women, respectively. All data were screened for normality and analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance, with the Bonferroni adjustment used on all pairwise comparisons. Item Ratings As expected, subjective ratings of items were consistent with the item’s category. The three categories of items differed in their ratings of importance [F(2,27) = 33.73, p < .001, η2 = .71]. Pairwise comparisons indicated that participants rated the pleasant (M = 5.3, SD = .97) category of items as significantly more important than the threatening [M = 3.6, SD = 1.5; t(28) = 5.79, p < .001] and neutral [M = 3.6, SD = 1.2; t(28) = 6.08, p < .001] items. Threatening and neutral items did not differ [t(28) = .07, p > .05]. Ratings of how threatening participants felt the items were also varied by category [F(2,27) = 199.1, p < .001, η2 = .94]. Pairwise comparisons indicate that participants rated the threatening items (M = 5.78, SD = 1.2) as more threatening than the pleasant [M = 1.8, SD = .78; t(28) = 17.91, p < .001] and neutral (M = 1.2, SD = .4; t(28) = 20.32, p < .001] items. The pleasant items were rated as more threatening than neutral items [t(28) = 5.81, p < .001], although both of these categories were rated as low in threat. Before grouping the items into categories for the statistical analysis of the attentional blink, each item was examined based on the overall number of times it was detected. As shown in Table 1, within the pleasant category, the items depicting gold and jewelry were never detected. One possible explanation is that the perceptual features of the pictures may have prevented their detection as a T2. Therefore, we eliminated the gold/jewelry item from the pleasant category. This did not change the results for the Picture Category variable in the statistical analysis of the attentional blink. Item reliability analysis supported the inclusion of all remaining items within each category1 (Cronbach’s alpha > .7). Attentional Blink The mean number of T2 items correctly perceived on those trials where T1 was also correctly detected was analyzed using a 2 (Trait Anxiety: low, high) ×

296


TABLE 1. Mean Number of T2 Items Correctly Identified in Experiment 1 (Out of 6; Standard Deviations Displayed in Parentheses)


Pleasant

Threatening

Neutral

Item

Lag 2

Lag 3

Lag 8

Babies Sex Money Jewelry/Gold Snakes Blood/Injury Guns Knives Trees Landscapes Couches Lamps

2.4 (1.8) 2.8 (1.7) 1.6 (1.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (0.8) 1.2 (1.4) 1.7 (1.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.4 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.6) 0.5 (0.7)

1.9 (1.8) 2.3 (1.9) 1.1 (1.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (1.0) 1.4 (1.4) 1.8 (1.7) 0.4 (0.6) 0.5 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (1.2) 0.8 (1.5)

2.0 (1.9) 2.1 (1.9) 1.7 (1.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (1.1) 1.3 (1.4) 1.7 (1.8) 0.5 (0.8) 1.0 (1.3) 0.4 (0.6) 1.0 (1.2) 1.5 (1.6)

3(Picture Category: threatening, pleasant, neutral) × 3 (Lag: 2, 3, 8) ANOVA. The picture category significantly influenced detection of T2 [F(2, 26) = 35.31, p < .001, η2 = .73]. There was no effect of Lag [F(2, 26) = 1.63, p > 0.1]. There was no main effect of Trait Anxiety [F(1,27) < 1.0]. Trait Anxiety did not interact with Picture Category [F(2,26) = 1.37, p > 1.0] or Lag [F(2,26) < 1.0]. The Picture Category X Lag X Trait Anxiety interaction was not significant [F(4,24) = 2.75, p > .05]. Additionally, neither trait nor state anxiety significantly correlated with detection of the threatening pictures. The correlation (Pearson, one-sided) between state anxiety and detection of threatening pictures at lags 2, 3, and 8 was .08, .07, and .19, respectively (p > .1 for all). The correlation between trait anxiety and detection of threatening pictures at lags 2, 3, and 8 was .16, .25, and .08, respectively (p > .05 for all). The significant Picture Category x Lag interaction [F(4,24) = 10.50, p < .001, η2 = .64] was consistent with an attentional blink at short lags that was attenuated by threatening pictures. Please see Figure 1 for a graphical depiction of the data. This impression was confirmed by specific comparisons where all critical values were adjusted using the Bonferroni correction such that the critical p-value used was .005. To see if there was an attentional blink for neutral pictures, the detection of neutral pictures at lags 2 and 3 were compared with lag 8. Significantly fewer neutral pictures were detected at lag 2 [t(28) = 3.89, p < .005] and lag 3 [t(28) = 3.66, p < .005]. Next, we compared the detection of each category of picture at each lag. At lag 2, threatening pictures [t(28) = 4.75, p < .001] were detected more than neutral pictures. Pleasant pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(28) = 8.47, p < .001] and threatening pictures [t(28) = 6.47, p < .001]. A similar pattern


de Oca et al.

297

FIGURE 1. Mean percentage of pleasant, threatening and neutral pictures detected at T2 following a neutral T1 in Experiment 1.

was seen at lag 3. Threatening pictures [t(28) = 5.54, p < .001] were detected more than neutral pictures. Pleasant pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(28) = 6.49, p < .001] and threatening pictures [t(28) = 4.05, p < .001]. At lag 8, threatening and neutral pictures did not differ significantly [t(28) = 2.03, p > .05]. Pleasant pictures continued to be detected at a level greater than neutral [t(28) = 6.54, p < .001] and threatening [t(28) = 5.98, p < .001] pictures. Consistent with an attentional blink to neutral pictures, a significant linear trend was found for neutral pictures across the three lags [F(1,27) = 14.63, p < .001]. Threatening [F(1,27) < 1.0] and Pleasant [F(1,27) = 2.0, p > .1] pictures did not show such a trend. One pattern that is evident from examination of Figure 1 is a high detection rate for pleasant pictures. In order to see if items within the pleasant category were detected more than the others, t-tests were used to compare the average detection of pictures of babies, money and erotic couples (at all three lags) with the average detection of neutral pictures at lag 8 (when there is no effect of attentional blink). Pictures of babies [t(28) = 6.97, p < .001], money [t(28) = 3.95, p < .001] and sex [t(28) = 6.97, p < .001], were all detected more than neutral pictures at lag 8. We also examined the errors made in T2 perception on trials where participants correctly identified the T1 stimulus and indicated they detected a second target (T2) but misidentified it as one of the other categories. A 3 (Picture Category: threatening, pleasant, neutral) × 3 (Lag: 2, 3, 8) X 2 (Trait Anxiety: low, high) ANOVA revealed a significant effect of Picture Category [F(2,26) = 6.29, p < .01, η2 = .33]. Both the threatening and pleasant T2 pictures resulted in more errors than neutral pictures. There was also an effect of Lag [F(2,26) = 11.59, p < .001, η2 = .47]. More errors were found on lags 2 and 3 than on lag 8. Trait anxiety did not significantly influence the number of errors [F(1,27) = 3.66, p > .05]. There

298


was no interaction between Picture Category and Trait [F(2,26) < 1.0] or Picture Category and Lag [F(4, 24) = 1.39, p > .1] and no three-way interaction between Picture Category, Lag and Trait Anxiety [F(4, 24) = 1.74, p > .1].


Discussion As predicted, and consistent with other research using an RSVP procedure, we found evidence of an attentional blink of neutral pictures that followed a neutral picture target in close temporal proximity. Neutral pictures were detected less often when they appeared at lags 2 and 3 after the first target than when they appeared at lag 8. Consistent with our predictions, threatening pictures of snakes, injury, guns, and knives diminished the attentional blink normally seen at lags 2 and 3. We did not find evidence that high state or trait anxiety enhanced the detection of threatening pictures in our non-clinical sample. The attenuation of the AB to threatening pictures is consistent with previous research where angry faces (de Jong et al., 2009) and unpleasant words (Keil & Ihssen, 2004) were found to diminish the attentional blink following an emotionally neutral T1. In terms of a role for anxiety in the modulation of visual attention, our results are consistent with studies that used angry facial expressions as targets. In two studies of angry face detection, the participants’ social anxiety was unrelated to their detection of angry faces (de Jong et al., 2009; de Jong & Martens, 2007). However, our results contrast with those of Fox, Russo, & Georgiou (2005) who found enhanced detection of fearful faces among anxious participants and Barnard and colleagues (2005), who found greater distractor effects with threatening word stimuli among anxious participants. These differences are possibly due to our use of an unselected, non-clinical sample. High levels of anxiety like that found among clinically anxious participants or participants preselected on the basis of anxiety may lead to results demonstrating that attention to threat is enhanced among highly anxious compared to non-anxious participants. However, among non-clinical participants with generally average levels of anxiety, there may be no relationship between anxiety and attention to threat. Our results are consistent with the perspective that heightened attention to emotional stimuli is generally adaptive and prevalent among the general population (eg., ¨ Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 1997; Ohman & Mineka, 2001). While individual differences in anxiety may influence attention to threat, they may not substantially shape the cognitive processes of the general population (Calvo & Lang, 2004). The results that stand out the most are the detection of pleasant T2 stimuli. In comparing detection of pleasant and unpleasant pictures, we found consistently greater perception of pleasant pictures (babies, money and erotic couples) at all three lags. The detection of pleasant pictures surpassed the detection of neutral and threatening stimuli even at lag 8, a time point beyond the influence of the attentional blink. The high detection rate of pleasant pictures is analogous to that


de Oca et al.

299

reported by Most and colleagues (2007), who studied attention to erotic pictures in an RSVP procedure. In a similar vein, taboo words created a larger attentional blink and were remembered better than pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral words (Mathewson, Arnell & Mansfield, 2008). The effects of taboo words were attributed to their highly arousing nature, which can make them more easy to process (Anderson, 2005) and more likely to maintain greater attentional processing, making them better able to withstand the brief loss of attentional resources during the attentional blink (Mathewson et al., 2008). Taboo words are also likely to produce a strong initial orienting response that is more likely to capture attention and create a larger attentional blink than neutral words (Mathewson et al., 2008). Studies of spatial attention have also found that arousal can influence attention in those tasks (ie. Vogt, De Houwer, Koster, Van Damme & Crombez, 2008; Mogg, Holmes, Garner, & Bradley, 2008). However, the stimuli used as part of the pleasant category in the current experiment were not all highly arousing. Although the present study was not designed to test for differences in temporal attention due to arousal, the presence of both high and low arousal items within the pleasant category is inconsistent with an interpretation based on arousal. Arousal ratings of baby pictures were lower than arousal ratings of erotic pictures and pictures of money (babies = 3.7, sex = 7.2, money = 6.3). However, all the pleasant items were comparable in terms of their valence ratings (babies = 7.5, sex = 6.9, money = 7.2) and rated by the participants as highly important. This suggests that the picture’s arousal was not the major determinant of enhanced attention to pictures of babies. Also, since the pictures did not include direct frontal views of the baby faces, we don’t suspect the responses to baby pictures to be primarily determined by facial recognition effects similar to those found by Brosch et al. (2007). Thus our results demonstrate greater modulation of the attentional blink by pleasant pictures of varying levels of arousal. Experiment 2 Emotional modulation of the attentional blink may vary depending on whether there are one or two emotional targets within the stream. For example, when only one emotional face target was included in a stream of images, angry and happy faces both resisted the attentional blink produced by a neutral T1 (de Jong et al., 2009). However, an emotional face at T1 resulted in attenuation of the attentional blink by angry but not happy faces (de Jong & Martens, 2007), suggesting that threatening stimuli may have an advantage over other stimuli when there are multiple emotional targets within a single trial. One aim of this experiment is to determine whether pleasant and unpleasant pictures at T2 can resist the effects of an emotional T1. Specifically, within an RSVP stream containing an emotional T1, threatening T2 stimuli may better capture attention than pleasant stimuli. In order to test this, we used threatening pictures as a T1 and threatening, pleasant,


300


and neutral pictures as a T2. Consistent with the results found on trials with neutral faces (de Jong et al., 2009) and neutral words (Schwabe & Wolf, 2010) at T2, we expect neutral pictures to be susceptible to an attentional blink by an emotional T1. Furthermore, we expect that threatening pictures but not pleasant pictures will be able to resist the attentional blink resulting from an emotional T1, consistent with the finding that angry but not happy faces resisted the attentional blink produced by an emotional face [(de Jong & Martens, 2007); although when word stimuli were used as targets, aversive T1 words impaired detection of aversive and neutral T2 words (Schwabe et al., 2010) suggesting possible differences stemming from the use of words versus faces.]. In terms of the heightened detection of pleasant pictures that we found in Experiment 1, we expect that the threatening picture at T1 in this experiment will limit their detection. Specifically, we expect to find that pleasant pictures will be detected at levels comparable to that of neutral pictures when an unpleasant T1 is present in the same trial. Method Participants Participants consisted of 67 volunteer undergraduate psychology students (7 males) of California State University Channel Islands who were offered course credit for their participation. Participants provided informed consent prior to their participation in the study. RSVP Task In each of the trials, participants were shown 16 pictures. Within these 16 images there were 2 target pictures and 14 fillers. The threatening T1 was preceded by 5, 6, or 7 filler pictures. The lag between T1 and T2 was 2, 3 or 8 pictures. As in Experiment 1, the images were presented for 120 ms each. Procedure The procedure was identical to that followed in Experiment 1, except that the RSVP task used threatening pictures as a T1. After the RSVP task, participants completed the STAI and rated each picture for its level of threat and importance. Results Data Preparation Data from 65 participants was available for analysis after eliminating data files with evidence of equipment malfunction or failure of participants to follow the instructions. Scores on the trait portion of the STAI were used to create two

de Oca et al.

301

groups of participants with either high (n = 30) or low (n = 35) trait anxiety. The mean trait anxiety score for the study participants included in the analyses was 47.75, and the mean state anxiety score was 40.78.


Item Ratings Participants rated the importance of the items belonging to the three categories differently [F(2,63) = 144.52, p < .001, η2 = .82]. Pairwise, comparisons indicated that participants rated the pleasant (M = 5.7, SD = .80) category of items as significantly more important than the threatening [M = 3.5, SD = 1.7; t(64) = 2.20, p < .001] and neutral [M = 3.3, SD = 1.2; t(64) = 15.22, p < .001] items. Threatening and neutral items did not differ [t(64) < 1.0]. Ratings of how threatening participants felt the items were to them also varied by category [F(2.63) = 461.79, p < .001, η2 = .94]. Pairwise comparisons indicate that participants rated the threatening items (M = 5.69, SD = 1.1) as more threatening than the pleasant [M = 2.1, SD = 1.12; t(64) = 21.39, p < .001] and neutral (M = 1.3, SD = .6; t(64) = 30.63, p < .001] items. The pleasant items were rated as more threatening than neutral items [t(64) = 6.61, p < .001], although both of these categories had relatively low ratings for threat. Attentional Blink The mean number of T2 items correctly perceived on those trials where T1 was also correctly detected was analyzed using a 2 (Trait Anxiety: low, high) × 3 (Picture Category: threatening, pleasant, neutral) × 3 (Lag: 2, 3, 8) ANOVA. The picture category significantly influenced detection of T2 [F(2, 62) = 134.42), p < .001, η2 = .81] as did the Lag [F(2, 62) = 19.92, p < 0.001, η2 = .39]. There was no main effect of Trait Anxiety [F(1,63) < 1.0]. Trait Anxiety did not interact with Picture Category [F(2,60) < 1.0] or Lag [F(2,60) < 1.0]. The Picture Category X Lag X Trait Anxiety interaction was not significant [F(4, 60) < 1.0]. The correlation (Pearson, one-sided) between state anxiety and detection of threatening pictures at lags 2, 3 and 8 was .02, .16, and .08, respectively (p > .1 for all). The correlation between trait anxiety and detection of threatening pictures at lags 2, 3 and 8 was –.14, –.07, and –.01, respectively (p > .1 for all). Consistent with an attentional blink to neutral but not other pictures at short lags, the interaction between Picture Category and Lag was significant [F(4,60) = 34.68, p < .001, η2 = .70]. As before, critical values of all specific comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. To see if there was an attentional blink for neutral pictures, the detection of neutral pictures at lags 2 and 3 were compared with lag 8. As is evident in Figure 2, significantly fewer neutral pictures were detected at lag 2 [t(64) = 8.72, p < .001] and lag 3 [t(64) = 4.99, p < .001] than lag 8. Next, we compared the detection of each picture category at each lag. At lag 2, threatening pictures [t(64) = 9.84, p < .001] were detected more than


302


FIGURE 2. Mean percentage of pleasant, threatening and neutral pictures detected at T2 following an unpleasant T1 in Experiment 2.

neutral pictures. Pleasant pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(64) = 18.94, p < .001] and threatening pictures [t(64) = 11.92, p < .001]. A similar pattern was seen at lag 3. Threatening pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(64) = 2.85, p < .01]. Pleasant pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(64) = 7.92, p < .001] and threatening pictures [t(64) = 6.29, p < .001]. At lag 8, threatening and neutral pictures did not differ significantly [t(64) < 1.0]. Pleasant pictures continued to be detected at a level greater than neutral [t(64) = 7.62, p < .001] and threatening [t(64) = 6.05, p < .001] pictures. Additional t-tests were used to compare the average detection of pleasant pictures across all three lags with the average detection of neutral pictures at lag 8 (when there is no effect of attentional blink). The pleasant pictures were detected significantly more than the neutral pictures at lag 8 [t(64) = 10.11, p < 001]. In order to determine whether detection of pictures within the pleasant category was comparable across the different items, additional analyses were conducted. Comparisons between the individual items of the pleasant category and the number of neutral T2 items detected at Lag 8 (when no attentional blink is evident) revealed that pictures of babies [t(64) = 10.29, p < .001], money [t(64) = 9.95, p < .001] and erotic couples [t(64) = 10.04, p < .001] were each detected more than neutral pictures at lag 8. An analysis of errors made in T2 detection when the T1 was correctly identified indicated a significant effect of Picture Category [F(2,62) = 21.46, p < .001, η2 = .41]. Pleasant T2 pictures resulted in fewer errors than threatening and neutral pictures. There was no effect of Lag [F(2,62) = 2.35, p > .1]. Trait anxiety did not significantly influence the number of errors [F(1,63) < 1.0]. There was no interaction between Picture Category and Trait [F(2,62) < 1.0] or Picture

de Oca et al.

303

Category and Lag [F(4, 60) = 1.38, p > .1] and no three way interaction between Picture Category, Lag and Trait Anxiety [F(4, 60) = 1.7, p > .1].


Discussion The detection of T2 in Experiment 2 revealed an attentional blink to neutral words when they occurred in close temporal proximity to T1 (ie. lags 2 and 3). Thus, we replicated the attentional blink to neutral pictures reported in Experiment 1. With regard to the attenuation of the attentional blink by emotional stimuli, we found evidence of this with the threatening pictures despite the use of a threatening T1. Consistent with our hypothesis, threatening pictures at lags 2 and 3 were detected at a level similar to that of neutral pictures at lag 8. This contrasts with the results reported by Schwabe et al., (2010) where an aversive word resisted the attentional blink produced by neutral T1 words, but not aversive T1 words. That we found the same pattern of results when employing a threatening T1 as we found in Experiment 1 while employing a neutral T1, suggests that pictures are affected differently than taboo words by competition for awareness between an emotional T1 and T2 (Schwabe & Wolf, 2010). We expected the presence of an unpleasant T1 to reduce detection of the pleasant pictures overall as well as to lead to an attentional blink to pleasant pictures at lags 2 and 3. Contrary to these expectations, pleasant pictures were detected at greater levels than both neutral and threatening pictures across all three lags. We therefore replicated the enhanced detection of pleasant T2’s found in Experiment 1, even with a T1 that was threatening. As in Experiment 1, there was no evidence of an attentional blink to pleasant pictures at lags 2 and 3, contrary to our expectations. The preferential detection of pleasant pictures we found is consistent with a small number of studies that have examined the effects of pleasant erotic pictures in an RSVP task. Ciesielski and colleagues (2010) found that erotic distractors produced a larger attentional blink to a later (200 ms) target than fear, disgust or neutral distractors. Most et al., (2007) also found that target-irrelevant erotic pictures of male-female couples decreased attention to a subsequent target, despite a monetary reward for correct target detection. They also found that participants were able to ignore negative distractors if they were provided with information that would lead to a mental set for target detection. However, participants were distracted by erotic pictures despite this. Another study examined the effects of pictures of food, romantic couples (not erotic pictures) and neutral distractors on subsequent target detection in participants provided substantial monetary rewards for target detection (Piech et al., 2010). Romantic distractors interfered with target detection the most. Interestingly, they also found that food distractors decreased target detection more when participants were hungry compared to when they were sated. Overall, these results suggest that romantic and erotic pictures of couples

304



can spontaneously capture attention to a greater degree than other types of stimuli, including negative stimuli. Additionally, the finding that hunger elevated the ability of food cues to capture attention suggests that motivation can be an important determinant of attention. Since these studies all found that attention capture by task-irrelevant distractors can limit subsequent target detection, it suggests that the use of pleasant pictures as T1 stimuli in an attentional blink procedure may lead to a greater disruption of target detection than either neutral or negative T1 stimuli.

Experiment 3 In experiments one and two, detection of either a neutral (Experiment 1) or threatening (Experiment 2) target reduced detection of later neutral targets. This attentional blink was attenuated by threatening targets in both cases. Also in both cases, pleasant targets were detected at higher rates than all other targets. Since others have found that erotic distractors can disrupt subsequent target detection more than negative distractors (Ciesielski et al., 2010; Most et al., 2007), in this experiment we will use pleasant T1 stimuli to see if these stimuli lead to a an attentional blink to all subsequent targets. We expect that pleasant pictures will capture attention when shown at T1 and lead to an attentional blink of neutral T2 pictures as we’ve seen in the previous two experiments. Based on the research reports described above that spontaneous attention to erotic distractors strongly impairs detection of subsequent targets, we expect that threatening and pleasant pictures will also experience an attentional blink in this case due to greater distraction from a pleasant T1 stimulus.

Method Participants The participants consisted of 74 volunteer undergraduate psychology students (15 males) of California State University Channel Islands who were offered course credit for their participation. Participants provided informed consent prior to their participation in the study.

RSVP Task In each of the trials participants were shown 16 pictures. Within these 16 images there were 2 target pictures and 14 fillers. The pleasant T1 was preceded by 5, 6 or 7 filler pictures. The lag between T1 and T2 was 2, 3, or 8 pictures. As before, each image was shown for 120 ms.

de Oca et al.

305

Procedure The procedure was identical to that followed in Experiment 1 except that the RSVP task used pleasant, motivationally-relevant pictures as a T1. The pictures were the same as described in Experiment 1. As before, participants completed the STAI and rated each picture for its level of threat and importance upon completing the RSVP task.


Results Data Preparation Data from 64 participants was available for analysis after eliminating data files with evidence of equipment malfunction, failure of participants to follow the instructions or experimenter error. Scores on the trait portion of the STAI were used to create two groups of participants with either high (n = 29) or low (n = 35) trait anxiety. The mean trait anxiety score was 48.19 and the mean state anxiety score was 39.72. Item Ratings Participants rated the importance of the items belonging to the three categories differently [F(2,61) = 93.46, p < .001, η2 = .75]. Pairwise comparisons indicated that participants rated the pleasant (M = 5.6, SD = 1.1) category of items as significantly more important than the threatening [M = 3.5, SD = 1.7; t(62) = 9.10, p < .001] and neutral [M = 3.4, SD = 1.3; t(62) = 11.09, p < .001] items. Threatening and neutral items did not differ [t(62) < 1.0]. Ratings of how threatening participants felt the items were also varied by category [F(2.61) = 246.17, p < .001, η2 = .89]. Pairwise comparisons indicate that participants rated the threatening items (M = 5.26, SD = 1.1) as more threatening than the pleasant [M = 1.7, SD = 0.80; t(62) = 21.85, p < .001] and neutral (M = 1.8, SD = 0.60; t(62) = 21.41, p < .001] items. The pleasant items and neutral items did not differ in their ratings of threat [t(62) = 1.1, p > .1]. Attentional Blink The mean number of T2 items correctly perceived on those trials where T1 was also correctly detected was analyzed using a 2 (State Anxiety: low, high) × 3 (Picture Category: threatening, pleasant, neutral) × 3 (Lag: 2, 3, 8) ANOVA. Picture Category significantly influenced detection of T2 [F(2, 61) = 107.59), p < .001, η2 = .78] as did Lag [F(2, 61) = 32.88, p < .001, η2 = .52]. The interaction between Picture Category x Lag was significant [F(4, 59) = 17.81, p < .001, η2 = .50]. There was also a main effect of Trait Anxiety [F(1,62) = 4.35, p < .05, η2 = .07 ]; participants low in trait anxiety identified more targets


306


FIGURE 3. Mean percentage of pleasant, threatening and neutral pictures detected by participants with low anxiety at T2 following a pleasant T1 in Experiment 3.

than participant high in trait anxiety. Figures 3 and 4 depict the results for the low and high trait anxiety participants, respectively. Trait Anxiety did not interact significantly with Picture Category [F(2,61) = 2.00, p > .10] or Lag [F(2,61) < 1.0]. The Picture Category X Lag X Trait Anxiety interaction was not significant [F(4,59) < 1.0]. The correlation (Pearson, one-sided) between state anxiety and detection of threatening pictures at lags 2, 3 and 8 was –.05, –.07, and –.09,

FIGURE 4. Mean percentage of pleasant, threatening and neutral pictures detected by participants with high anxiety at T2 following a pleasant T1 in Experiment 3.


de Oca et al.

307

respectively (p > .1 for all). The correlation between trait anxiety and detection of threatening pictures at lags 2, 3 and 8 was .06, -.08, and -.04, respectively (p > .1 for all). To confirm that there was an attentional blink for neutral pictures, the detection of neutral pictures at lags 2 and 3 was compared with lag 8. Significantly fewer neutral pictures were detected at lag 2 [t(63) = 10.75, p < .001] and lag 3 [t(63) = 6.61, p < .001]. We then compared the detection of each picture category at each lag. At lag 2, threatening pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(63) = 7.89, p < .001]. Pleasant pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(63) = 9.22, p < .001] and threatening pictures [t(63) = 9.22, p < .001]. A similar pattern was seen at lag 3. Threatening pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(63) = 6.76, p < .001]. Pleasant pictures were detected more than neutral pictures [t(63) = 12.26, p < .001] and threatening pictures [t(63) = 8.65, p < .001]. At lag 8, threatening and neutral pictures did not differ significantly [t(63) < 1.0]. Pleasant pictures continued to be detected at a level greater than neutral [t(63) = 10.46, p < .001] and threatening [t(63) = 10.78, p < .001] pictures. Comparisons between the individual items of the pleasant category and the number of neutral T2 items detected at Lag 8 (when no attentional blink is evident) revealed that pictures of babies [t(64) = 10.29, p < .001], money [t(64) = 9.95, p < .001] and erotic couples [t(64) = 10.04, p < .001] were each detected more than neutral pictures at lag 8. Errors made in T2 perception on trials where T1 was correctly identified were analyzed using a 3 (Picture Category: threatening, pleasant, neutral) × 3 (Lag: 2, 3, 8) X 2 (Trait Anxiety: low, high) ANOVA. There was a significant effect of Picture Category [F(2,61) = 11.60, p < .001, η2 = .28]. The threatening T2 pictures resulted in more errors than pleasant and neutral pictures. There was also an effect of Lag [F(2, 61) = 9.31, p < .001, η2 = .23]. Fewer errors were found on lags 2 and 3 than on lag 8. Trait anxiety did not significantly influence the number of errors [F(1,62) = 1.60, p > .1]. There was no interaction between Picture Category and Trait [F(2,61) < 1.0] or Picture Category and Lag [F(4, 59) = 1.60, p > .1] and no three way interaction between Picture Category, Lag and Trait Anxiety [F(4, 59) < 1.0]. Discussion The results of Experiment 3 mirror those of the first two experiments despite the presence of a pleasant picture at T1. As expected, detection of neutral pictures was reduced when they closely followed the first target, the so-called “attentional blink” (Raymond et al., 1992). In contrast to our expectations, threatening pictures resisted the attentional blink and were detected more than neutral T2 pictures at lags 2 and 3. We expected that the subjectively-important pleasant T1 pictures would be likely to limit the


308


detection of even threatening pictures at T2. This was based on the ability of these pleasant pictures to capture attention better than unpleasant pictures in Experiments 1 and 2. Our results clearly indicated that this was not the case. Although these types of pictures are particularly good at spontaneously capturing attention within the RSVP stream (Ciesielski et al., 2010; Piech et al., 2010; Most et al., 2007), they did not produce a more powerful attentional blink when employed as a target stimulus in this experiment. Furthermore, pleasant, motivationally important T2 pictures not only resisted the attentional blink produced by the same category of T1, but were detected at rates substantially higher than other pictures, as in Experiments 1 and 2. General Discussion In three experiments that employed a neutral, threatening, and pleasant T1, we found diminished detection of neutral T2’s at lags 2 and 3 (i.e., an attentional blink). In each experiment, the attentional blink seen to neutral T2’s was resisted by threatening T2’s, consistent with other studies demonstrating that emotional stimuli are able to resist the attentional blink (e.g., de Jong & Martens, 2007). Furthermore, pleasant pictures of babies, money and erotic scenes featuring malefemale couples were detected more often than all other pictures and did not demonstrate sensitivity to the attentional blink in any of the three experiments. Our results demonstrate a novel effect of enhanced detection of pleasant pictures at T2 using an attentional blink procedure. We are not aware of other reports of similar findings where detection is enhanced when the T2 is a pleasant, motivationally important picture. However, there is evidence of exceptionally good attention capture by erotic stimuli within an RSVP stream. Researchers have found that erotic pictures exert a high degree of spontaneous attention capture and resist efforts to minimize their effects through the use of monetary rewards for correct target detection and the formation of a mental set for the target (Most et al., 2007; Piech, et al., 2010). The elevated detection of pleasant pictures we found in all three experiments seems consistent with the powerful attention-capturing effects of erotic pictures reported by others. However, we obtained these effects using a greater variety of stimuli including pictures of babies and money as well as erotic couples. Overall, the enhanced detection we found for pleasant pictures is inconsistent with an evolutionary hypothesis that would predict that the greatest attention should be dedicated to threatening stimuli due to the critical advantages provided by early detection of threat. While we did find that threatening stimuli resist the ¨ attentional blink, as predicted by the evolutionary perspective (Ohman et al., 2001; ¨ Ohman & Mineka, 2001), our broader pattern of results are more consistent with an interpretation based on motivational relevance (Fox et al., 2007) rather than threat relevance. In terms of the motivational relevance of the stimuli we used, it’s important to point out that our participants were college students and the items


de Oca et al.

309

used in the pleasant category included money, babies, and erotic couples. Pictures related to money and sex may be particularly relevant to this relatively young group of participants. Further research should explore whether these same items lead to similar effects among older and more financially secure participants. Also of interest is whether a temporary motivational state like hunger, thirst, or some other motivation-induced via priming could lead to similar effects for motivationally relevant stimuli. Piech and colleagues (2010) have found that food distractors spontaneously capture attention more among hungry participants, and it is possible that other motivationally relevant cues may capture attention as well when the participant is experiencing a high degree of motivation for that particular item. Our pleasant stimuli demonstrated a strong ability to capture attention at T2, although they did not seem to lead to more powerful attentional blinks to subsequent target stimuli when used as T1 stimuli. We had expected to find that the detection of threatening T2’s would be reduced by the pleasant T1. This would have been consistent with other studies demonstrating that stimuli that capture attention better produce a larger attentional blink (Schwabe et al., 2010; Most et al., 2007). However, these deleterious effects of erotic and romantic distractors on subsequent target detection have only been reported in trials where the target was a neutral landscape picture. We found that detection of neutral, threatening, and pleasant targets did not change when the T1 consisted of the same types of pictures that were particularly effective at capturing attention at T2. Therefore, while we did not find any differences due to the use of a pleasant T1, the prior research using erotic distractors did not include emotional or arousing target stimuli like we did, making a direct comparison difficult. One issue we attempted to address in this series of experiments is the validity of the categories used. Each category contained a variety of stimuli (living and non-living; evolutionarily significant and modern) and avoided direct views of faces of the men and women in the erotic scenes and of the baby’s faces in order to minimize attention capture by faces (Brosch, Sander, & Scherer, 2007; Vuilleumier, Armony, Driver & Dolan, 2003). In comparison to others who have examined the effects of pleasant stimuli on the attentional blink, we included three different types of pleasant items (money, babies, erotic couples), whereas others have mainly used happy facial expressions or erotic couples. Despite the diversity of the items within each category, we found similar detection of each of the items. Another issue is that of arousal. We cannot account for the elevated detection of pleasant pictures on the basis of arousal since the pictures of babies were rated relatively low in arousal, yet they were detected as well as the other pleasant pictures (money and erotic couples). However, the participants rated all of the items within the pleasant category as highly important, and pleasant pictures were rated as more important than threatening and neutral pictures. While further testing is needed, the results reported here are consistent with an interpretation based on personal relevance (Mogg et al., 2008; Fox, Griggs & Mouchlianitis, 2007; Ford et al., 2010).


310


Other researchers have also found that relying exclusively on valence and arousal to explain reactions to picture content is limited and may exclude other relevant factors (Murphy, Hill, Ramponi, Calder, & Barnard, 2010; Libkuman, Otani, Kern, Viger, & Novak, 2007). For example, Murphy, et al., (2010) found that a picture’s impact, but not its valence and arousal, best accounted for the amount of attention provided to it. According to the authors, an image’s impact is thought to relate to its personal relevance to the viewer (Murphy et al., 2010). It is a subjective impression of how much a picture affects a person without regard to whether the image generates positive or negative feelings or high or low arousal, although highly arousing images are likely to also have high impact (Ewbank, Barnard, Croucher, Ramponi & Calder, 2009). In conclusion, several studies have found that motivation and personal relevance can influence the types of pictures individuals attend to. Hunger (Piech et al., 2010), induced anger (Ford, et al., 2010), and jealousy (Most, et al., 2010) have all been found to significantly influence attention in a way that is consistent with motivation, and stimuli that are related to sexual and other appetitive motivation also are capable of attention capture. The results reported here join these types of studies in support of a role for motivational relevance in attention capture as well. NOTE 1. Since there was no variance in the number of gold and jewelry items perceived, we could not include this item in the analysis of item reliability for the pleasant category.

AUTHOR NOTES Beatrice M. de Oca is an associate professor of psychology at California State University Channel Islands. She earned her Ph.D. in psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles. Her current research interests include the emotional modification of visual attention and the influence of emotional expressions on prosocial behavior. Marie Villa is currently pursuing her doctorate in psychology at the University of Montana, Missoula. She is currently researching intimate partner violence. Miguel Cervantes and Tyler Welbourne received their undergraduate degrees in psychology from California State University Channel Islands.

REFERENCES Anderson, A. K. (2005). Affective influences on the attentional dynamics supporting awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 258–281. Arnell, K. M., Killman, K.V., & Fijavz, D. (2007). Blinded by emotion: Target misses follow attention capture by arousing distractors in RSVP. Emotion, 7(3), 465–477. Barnard, P. J., Ramponi, C., Battye, G., & Mackintosh, B. (2005). Anxiety and the development of visual attention over time. Visual Cognition, 12(1), 181–211. Blanchard, R. J., & Blanchard, D. C. (1971). Defensive reactions in the albino rat. Learning and Motivation, 2, 351–362.


de Oca et al.

311

Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K.R. (2007). That baby caught my eye . . . Attention capture by infant faces. Emotion, 7, 685–689. Brosch, T., & Sharma, D. (2005). The role of fear-relevant stimuli in visual search: A comparison of phylogenetic and ontogenetic stimuli. Emotion, 5, 360–364. Calvo, M. G., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Gaze patterns when looking at emotional pictures: Motivationally biased attention. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 221–243. Ciesielski, B. G., Armstrong, T., Zald, D. H., & Olatunji, B. O. (2010). Emotion modulation of visual attention: Categorical and temporal characteristics. Plos ONE, 5(11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013860 Cisler, J. M., Bacon, A. K., & Williams, N. L. (2009). Phenomenological characteristics of attentional biases towards threat: A critical review. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33(2), 221–234. Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1989). Observational conditioning of fear to fear-relevant versus fear-irrelevant stimuli in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98(4), 448–459. de Jong, P. J., Koster, E. H. W., van Wees, R., & Martens S. (2009). Emotional facial expressions and the attentional blink: Attenuated blink for angry and happy faces irrespective of social anxiety. Cognition & Emotion, 23(8), 1640–1652. de Jong, P. J., & Martens, S. (2007). Detection of emotional expressions in rapidly changing facial displays in high- and low-socially anxious women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(6), 1285–1294. Ewbank, P. M., Barnard, P. J., Croucher, C. J., Ramponi, C., & Calder, A. J. (2009). The amygdala response to images with impact. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(2), 127–133. Ford, B. Q., Tamir, M., Bruny´e, T. T., Shirer, W. R., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2010). Keeping your eyes on the prize: Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1098–1105. doi:10.1177/0956797610375450 Fox, E., Griggs, L., & Mouchlianitis, E. (2007). The detection of fear-relevant stimuli: Are guns noticed as quickly as snakes. Emotion, 7(4), 691–696. Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 681–700. Fox, E., Russo, R., & Georgiou, G. A. (2005). Anxiety modulates the degree of attentive resources required to process emotional faces. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 396–404. Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Harris, C. R., & Darby, R. S. (2010). Jealousy in adulthood. In S. L. Hart, M. Legerstee, S. L. Hart, M. Legerstee (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 547–571). Wiley-Blackwell. Ihssen, N., & Keil, A. (2009). The costs and benefits of processing emotional stimuli during rapid serial visual presentation. Cognition & Emotion, 23(2), 296–326. Keil, A., & Ihssen, N. (2004). Identification facilitation for emotionally arousing verbs during the attentional blink. Emotion, 4(1), 23–35. Lane, R. D., Chua, P. M-L., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). Common effects of emotional valence, arousal and attention on neural activation during visual processing of pictures. Neuropsychologia, 37(9), 989–997. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. (1997). Motivated attention: Affect, activation, and action. In P. J. Lang, R. F. Simmons, & M. T. Balaban (Eds.), Attention and orienting: Sensory and motivational processes (pp. 97–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Libkuman, T. M., Otani, H., Kern, R., Viger, S. G., & Novak, N. (2007). Multidimensional normative ratings for the International Affective Picture System. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 326–334.


312


MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 653–670. Mathews, A. (1990). Why worry? The cognitive function of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 455–468. Mathewson, K. J., Arnell, K. M., & Mansfield, C. A. (2008). Capturing and holding attention: The impact of emotional words in rapid serial visual presentation. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 182–200. Mogg, K., Bradley, B., Hyare, H., & Lee, S. (1998). Selective attention to food-related stimuli in hunger: are attentional biases specific to emotional and psychopathological states, or are they also found in normal drive states? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 227–237. Mogg, K., Holmes, A., Garner, M., & Bradley, B. P. (2008). Effect of threat cues on attentional shifting, disengagement and response slowing in anxious individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 656–667. Most, S. B., & Junge, J. A. (2008). Don’t look back: Retroactive, dynamic costs and benefits of emotional capture. Visual Cognition, 16(2–3), 262–278. Most, S. B., Laurenceau, J., Graber, E., Belcher, A., & Smith, C. (2010). Blind jealousy? Romantic insecurity increases emotion-induced failures of visual perception. Emotion, 10(2), 250–256. Most, S. B., Smith, S. D., Cooter, A. B., Levy, B. N., & Zald, D. H. (2007). The naked truth: Positive, arousing distracters impair rapid target perception. Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 964–981. Murphy, F. C., Hill, E. L., Ramponi, C. C., Calder, A. J., & Barnard, P. J. (2010). Paying attention to emotional images with impact. Emotion, 10(5), 605–614. ¨ Ohman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 466–478. ¨ Ohman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522. Olivers, C. N. L., & Meeters, M. (2008). A boost and bounce theory of temporal attention. Psychological Review, 115(4), 836–863. Owings, D. H., & Coss, R. G. (1977). Snake mobbing by California Ground Squirrels: Adaptive variation and ontogeny. Behaviour, 62, 50–69. Piech, R. M., McHugo, M., Smith, S. D., Dukic, M. S., Van Der Meer, J., Abou-Khalil, B., . . . Zald, D. H. (2011). Attentional capture by emotional stimuli is preserved in patients with amygdala lesions. Neuropsychologia, 49(12), 3314–3319. Piech, R., Pastorino, M., & Zald, D. (2010). All I saw was the cake. Hunger effects on attentional capture by visual food cues. Appetite, 54(3), 579–582. Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 849–860. Seligman, M. E. P. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2, 307–321. Smith, S. D., Most, S. B., Newsome, L. A., & Zald, D. H. (2006). An emotion-induced attentional blink elicited by aversively conditioned stimuli. Emotion, 6(3), 523–527. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Schwabe, L., & Wolf, O. T. (2010). Emotional modulation of the attentional blink: Is there an effect of stress? Emotion, 10(2), 283–288. Trippe, R. H., Hewig, J., Heydel, C., Hecht, H., & Miltner, W. H. R. (2007). Attentional blink to emotional and threatening pictures in spider phobics: Electrophysiology and behavior. Brain Research, 1148, 149–160.


de Oca et al.

313

Vuilleumier, P., Armony, J., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. (2003). Distinct spatial frequency sensitivities for processing faces and emotional expressions. Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 624–631. doi:10.1038/nn1057 Vogt, J., De Houwer, J., Koster, E. H. W., Van Damme, S., & Crombez, G. (2008). Allocation of spatial attention to emotional stimuli depends on arousal and not valence. Emotion, 8(6), 880–885. Wallace, K., & Rosen, J. (2000). Predator odor as an unconditioned fear stimulus in rats: Elicitation of freezing by trimethylthiazoline, a component of fox feces. Behavioral Neuroscience, 114(5), 912–922. Yiend, J. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing of emotional information. Cognition & Emotion, 24(1), 3–47.

Original manuscript received August 28, 2011 Final version accepted June 28, 2012 APPENDIX 1 List of Pictures From the IAPS Used as T1 Stimuli in Experiment 1 1333, 1350, 1410, 1500, 1510, 1540, 1590, 1610, 1620, 1630, 1640, 1740, 1810, 1812, 1910, 2036, 2273, 2374, 2377, 2381, 2383, 2393, 2397, 2400, 2518, 2521, 2525, 2575, 2580, 2593, 2594, 2605, 5836, 7057, 7440, 7489, 7499, 7509, 7550.

APPENDIX 2


314 The Journal of General Psychology

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

Attentional disengagement is modulated by the offset of unpleasant pictures: a saccadic reaction time study.

Memories in depression: pleasant or unpleasant?

Photometric analysis of esthetically pleasant and unpleasant facial profile.

Mood, pleasant events, and unpleasant events: two pilot studies.

Reaching back: the relative strength of the retroactive emotional attentional blink.

Effect of Suppression, Reappraisal, and Acceptance of Emotional Pictures on Acoustic Eye-Blink Startle Magnitude.

The time course of attentional modulation on emotional conflict processing.

Distinct neural networks underlying empathy for pleasant and unpleasant touch.

The Rewarding Effect of Pictures with Positive Emotional Connotation upon Perception and Processing of Pleasant Odors-An FMRI Study.

Sleep after practice reduces the attentional blink.

Erratum to: Attentional control in the attentional blink is modulated by odor.

Effect of depression on the speed of recall of pleasant and unpleasant experiences.

Disruption reduces accuracy and P3b amplitudes in the attentional blink.

Pre-target oscillatory brain activity and the attentional blink.

The attentional blink in typically developing and reading-disabled children.

Revisiting the spread of sparing in the attentional blink.

Working memory performance and exposure to pleasant and unpleasant ambient odor: is spatial span special?

Unpleasant and Pleasant Referential Thinking: Relations with Self- Processing, Paranoia, and Other Schizotypal Traits.

Facial expression influences face identity recognition during the attentional blink.

Emotional sounds modulate early neural processing of emotional pictures.

Attentional Control Theory in Childhood: Enhanced Attentional Capture by Non-Emotional and Emotional Distractors in Anxiety and Depression.

Physiological Implications of Hydrogen Sulfide in Plants: Pleasant Exploration behind Its Unpleasant Odour.

Is trait resilience characterized by specific patterns of attentional bias to emotional stimuli and attentional control?

A comparative study of sustained attentional bias on emotional processing in ADHD children to pictures with eye-tracking.