4.6 Article

Biased information processing and anxiety coping: differences in attentional and approach patterns towards positive cues in repressors

期刊

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-04087-7

关键词

Repressors; Sensitizers; Dot-probe task; Cognitive bias; Approach-Avoidance Task; Emotional coping; Cognitive coping

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL
  2. Faculty of Education, Architecture and the Arts of the Uni-versity of Siegen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual differences in emotional coping styles can impact information processing at different stages. Repressors show a strong approach tendency towards positive stimuli, while sensitizers display a strong avoidance tendency. There were no significant group differences in attention bias and approach/avoidance bias. These findings highlight the association between emotional coping styles and information processing.
Individual differences in emotional coping styles are likely to affect information processing on different stages. Repressive coping is assumed to be related to an attentional bias away from threatening information. Possible links to biases in later stages of information processing have not been investigated to date. In the current study, 82 participants completed the visual dot-probe task as a measure of attentional bias and the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT) as a measure of approach/avoidance bias and classified into coping groups via the Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI). Prevalence of attention bias and approach/avoidance bias were compared between groups. Main results revealed a strong approach tendency toward positive stimuli for repressors and a strong avoidance tendency for sensitizers. No group differences were found for approach bias to negative stimuli or for attention bias. The present findings of strong preferential processing of positive stimuli in repressors may be part of broader information processing alterations, which may also be linked to alterations in emotion processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据