» Articles » PMID: 37711323

Spider Vs. Guns: Expectancy and Attention Biases to Phylogenetic Threat Do Not Extend to Ontogenetic Threat

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2023 Sep 15
PMID 37711323
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Attention bias plays an important role in specific fears and phobias. Previous studies revealed that expectancies affect attention toward neutral stimuli but not threatening stimuli. The aim of the current study was to test whether this selective influence of expectancies on attention is specific to phylogenetic threat (i.e., spiders) or whether it can be generalized to ontogenetic threat (i.e., guns). Correspondingly, we directly compared expectancy effects on attentional allocation to phylogenetically vs. ontogenetically threatening stimuli.

Method: Expectancies were manipulated by presenting a cue indicating the likelihood of the appearance of a deviant picture in a visual search array. The array included eight distractors and one neutral (phone/bird) or threatening (gun/spider) deviant picture. In a comprehensive design, we examined the effects of stimulus type (phylogenetic/ontogenetic) and visual background (white and sterile/complex and ecological). Individual differences such as intolerance of uncertainty and spider fear were also measured.

Results: Results showed that attention bias toward spiders does not extend to threatening ontogenetic stimuli (i.e., guns). Our previous findings on attention bias toward spiders were replicated and a small to medium positive correlation was found between reaction time to bird targets and pre-existing fear of spider levels. Cues were used to detect threatening as well as neutral targets on both background types, except for spider targets on a complex background, replicating previous results. A small to medium positive correlation was also found between fear of spiders and intolerance of uncertainty.

Discussion: Together, these results suggest that expectancy and attentional processes may differ between ontogenetic and phylogenetic threat. Importantly, the effects of expectancy on attentional allocation depend on an interaction between the type of threat (ontogenetic/phylogenetic), visual factors, and individual differences.

Citing Articles

Human emotional evaluation of ancestral and modern threats: fear, disgust, and anger.

Peleskova S, Polak J, Janovcova M, Chomik A, Sedlackova K, Frynta D Front Psychol. 2024; 14:1321053.

PMID: 38239483 PMC: 10794497. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1321053.

References
1.
Einstein D . Extension of the Transdiagnostic Model to Focus on Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Treatment. Clin Psychol (New York). 2014; 21(3):280-300. PMC: 4204511. DOI: 10.1111/cpsp.12077. View

2.
Forbes S, Purkis H, Lipp O . Better safe than sorry: simplistic fear-relevant stimuli capture attention. Cogn Emot. 2011; 25(5):794-804. DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2010.514710. View

3.
Zsido A, Csatho A, Matuz A, Stecina D, Arato A, Inhof O . Does Threat Have an Advantage After All? - Proposing a Novel Experimental Design to Investigate the Advantages of Threat-Relevant Cues in Visual Processing. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:2217. PMC: 6776589. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02217. View

4.
Ginat-Frolich R, Klein Z, Aderka I, Shechner T . Reducing avoidance in adults with high spider fear using perceptual discrimination training. Depress Anxiety. 2019; 36(9):859-865. DOI: 10.1002/da.22930. View

5.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A . G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175-91. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193146. View