1,452
Views
16
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
BRIEF REPORT

Threat ≠ prevention, challenge ≠ promotion: The impact of threat, challenge and regulatory focus on attention to negative stimuli

, &
Pages 188-195 | Received 29 Nov 2013, Accepted 24 Feb 2014, Published online: 21 Mar 2014
 

Abstract

The purpose of the current experiment was to distinguish between the impact of strategic and affective forms of gain- and loss-related motivational states on the attention to negative stimuli. On the basis of the counter-regulation principle and regulatory focus theory, we predicted that individuals would attend more to negative than to neutral stimuli in a prevention focus and when experiencing challenge, but not in a promotion focus and under threat. In one experiment (N = 88) promotion, prevention, threat, or challenge states were activated through a memory task, and a subsequent dot probe task was administered. As predicted, those in the prevention focus and challenge conditions had an attentional bias towards negative words, but those in promotion and threat conditions did not. These findings provide support for the idea that strategic mindsets (e.g., regulatory focus) and hot emotional states (e.g., threat vs. challenge) differently affect the processing of affective stimuli.

This research was supported by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [grant number 452-07-006].

This research was supported by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [grant number 452-07-006].

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available via the ‘Supplementary’ tab on the article's online page (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.898612).

Notes

1 One might argue that the effect is driven by content (i.e., threat) and not by the negative valence of the stimuli. To rule out this explanation, we computed response times separately for targets that were, according to our pretest, high and low in threat. This additional factor did not qualify the predicted effect. The crucial valence × concept × validity × strength of threat interaction did not turn out significant, F(1, 84) = 0.97, p = .328. We thank Klaus Rothermund for drawing our attention to this issue.

2 Results did not differ when two-way interactions were computed as effects within the complete design.

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.