4.5 Article

Eye tracking shows no substantive relationships between individual differences related to aggression and visual attention to unambiguously violent stimuli

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2023.112425

关键词

Aggression; Visual attention; Eye-tracking; Aggressive personality; Psychopathy; Intimate partner violence; Violence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigated the relationships between aggression-related personality dimensions and attention toward violent images in young adults. The results showed little support for attentional biases in a healthy population.
Social-cognitive theories of aggression stipulate that aggressive people have an attentional bias for aggressive and ambiguously aggressive cues. This biased social information processing is thought to occur from very basic attentional processes (encoding) through to higher order interpretative processes (representation). The present research was a detailed investigation into the relationships between aggression-related personality dimensions in young adults and attention toward images depicting general violence, intimate partner violence, and non-violent images. Participants completed measures of trait aggression, intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization, alcohol use, psychopathy, empathy, and insecure adult attachment. In a dual-picture free-viewing eye tracker paradigm, participants viewed three trial types for 2000 ms: general violence versus neutral cues; intimate partner violence versus neutral cues; and intimate partner violence versus general violence. Experiment 1 (N = 127) showed a few of the predicted relationships between the traits and attention, but Experiment 2 (N = 127) failed to replicate these findings and there was no overlap in significant results between studies. These data provide very little support for attentional biases in a healthy population toward unambiguously violent stimuli as a function of aggression-related traits.

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

4.5
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