Geänderte Inhalte

Find out how to access GEMI's Limesurvey instance...

Publikationen der Abteilung Kognitionswissenschaft und Entscheidungspsychologie. Für den Zugriff auf die PDFs unserer Publikationen verwenden Sie bitte folgende Zugangsdaten: Benutzer: cognition Passwort: access

We assessed individual differences in visual attention toward faces in relation to their attractiveness via saccadic reaction times. Motivated by the aim to understand individual differences in attention to faces, we tested three hypotheses: (a) Attractive faces hold or capture attention more effectively than less attractive faces; (b) men show a stronger bias toward attractive opposite-sex faces than women; and (c) blue-eyed men show a stronger bias toward blue-eyed than brown-eyed feminine faces. The latter test was included because prior research suggested a high effect size. Our data supported hypotheses (a) and (b) but not (c). By conducting separate tests for disengagement of attention and attention capture, we found that individual differences exist at distinct stages of attentional processing but these differences are of varying robustness and importance. In our conclusion, we also advocate the use of linear mixed effects models as the most appropriate statistical approach for studying inter-individual differences in visual attention with naturalistic stimuli. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Safety behaviors are responses that can reduce or even prevent an expected threat. Moreover, empirical studies have shown that using safety behaviors to a learnt safety stimulus can induce threat beliefs to it. No research so far has examined whether threat beliefs induced this way generalize to other novel stimuli related to the safety stimulus. Using a fear and avoidance conditioning model, the current study (n=116) examined whether threat beliefs induced by safety behaviors generalize to other novel generalization stimuli (GSs). Participants first acquired safety behaviors to a threat predicting conditioned stimulus (CSthreat). Safety behaviors could then be performed in response to one safe stimulus (CSsafeShift) but not to another (CSsafe). In a following generalization test, participants showed a significant but small increase in threat expectancies to GSs related to CSsafeShift compared to GSs related to CSsafe. Interestingly, the degree of safety behaviors used to the CSsafeShift predicted the subsequent increase in threat expectancies, and this link was elevated in trait anxious individuals. The findings suggest that threat beliefs induced by unnecessary safety behaviors generalize to other related stimuli. This study provides a potential explanation for the root of threat belief acquisition to a wide range of stimuli or situations.