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

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.

Keywords:

• Regulatory focus
• Threat
• Challenge
• Attention
• Self-regulation

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.