1,194
Views
31
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
REGULAR ARTICLES

Attentional capture by emotional faces is contingent on attentional control settings

&
Pages 1223-1237 | Received 29 May 2011, Accepted 14 Nov 2011, Published online: 15 Mar 2012
 

Abstract

Attentional capture by schematic emotional faces was investigated in two experiments using the flanker task devised by Eriksen and Eriksen (1974). In Experiment 1, participants were presented with a central target (a schematic face that was either positive or negative) flanked by two identical distractors, one on either side (schematic faces that were positive, negative, or neutral). The objective was to identify the central target as quickly as possible. The impact of the flankers depended on their emotional expression. Consistent with a threat advantage hypothesis (negative faces are processed faster and attract more processing resources), responses to positive faces were slower when these were flanked by (response incompatible) negative faces as compared with positive or neutral faces, whereas responses to negative faces were unaffected by the identity of the flankers. Experiment 2 was a standard flanker task with letter stimuli except that the task-neutral flankers were schematic faces that were either positive, negative, or emotionally neutral. In this case, in which faces and emotional expressions were to be ignored, performance seemed entirely unaffected by the faces. This result suggests that attentional capture by emotional faces is contingent on attentional control settings.

Notes

1Other experimental paradigms, not discussed here, include RSVP and attentional blink paradigms (e.g., Anderson & Phelps, Citation2001), the emotional Stroop task (Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, Citation1996; also see MacLeod, Citation1991), and the spatial cuing (dot-probe) task (Bradley, Mogg, Falla, & Hamilton, Citation1998; MacLeod, Mathews, & Tata, Citation1986; also see Cooper & Langton, Citation2006; Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, Citation2001; Fox, Russo, & Dutton, Citation2002).

2We also conducted an overall analysis using a 2 (Target Emotion: positive vs. negative)×4 (Flanker Condition: no-flanker, compatible, neutral, incompatible) repeated-measures ANOVA. This analysis revealed a similar pattern of results: The main effect of Flanker Condition on mean RTs was significant, F(3, 117)=7.42, MSE=263.61, p<.001; the main effect of Target Emotion was not significant, F<1; and the interaction between Target Emotion and Flanker Condition was significant, F(2.64, 102.81)=5.15, MSE=239.18, p<.01. For all of the multi-factor ANOVAs reported in this paper, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used to adjust the degrees of freedom in the cases where Mauchly's test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.