Loading…

Safety First: Instrumentality for Reaching Safety Determines Attention Allocation Under Threat

Theories of attention to emotional information suggest that attentional processes prioritize threatening information. In this article, we suggest that attention will prioritize the events that are most instrumental to a goal in any given context, which in threatening situations is typically reaching...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Emotion (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2017-04, Vol.17 (3), p.528-537
Main Authors: Vogt, Julia, Koster, Ernst H. W., De Houwer, Jan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a387t-e8bf2b187f7f1903c09da1c227b111865d39d93631c8595cd330c38854846d363
cites
container_end_page 537
container_issue 3
container_start_page 528
container_title Emotion (Washington, D.C.)
container_volume 17
creator Vogt, Julia
Koster, Ernst H. W.
De Houwer, Jan
description Theories of attention to emotional information suggest that attentional processes prioritize threatening information. In this article, we suggest that attention will prioritize the events that are most instrumental to a goal in any given context, which in threatening situations is typically reaching safety. To test our hypotheses, we used an attentional cueing paradigm that contained cues signaling imminent threat (i.e., aversive noises) as well as cues that allowed participants to avoid threat (instrumental safety signals). Correct reactions to instrumental safety signals seemingly allowed participants to lower the presentation rate of the threat. Experiment 1 demonstrates that attention prioritizes instrumental safety signals over threat signals. Experiment 2 replicates this finding and additionally compares instrumental safety signals to other action-relevant signals controlling for action relevance as cause of the effects. Experiment 3 demonstrates that when actions toward threat signals permit to avoid threat, attention prioritizes threat signals. Taken together, these results support the view that instrumentality for reaching safety determines the allocation of attention under threat.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/emo0000251
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1842549414</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1848264874</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a387t-e8bf2b187f7f1903c09da1c227b111865d39d93631c8595cd330c38854846d363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0ctqGzEUBmBREurE7SYPUAayKQmT6ugyI3Vn0lwMhkBrbytkzZl6wlxcSbPw20eu3QSijQ6Hjx_xi5ALoDdAefkNu4GmwyR8IGegOeQgoThJs2Qq51KwCTkP4ZlSEFyLj2TCSlVoURRn5PcvW2PcZfeND_F7Nu9D9GOHfbRtk9b14LOfaN2m6f9kR_oDI_qu6TFksxgTbYY-m7Xt4Oy_cdVX6LPlxqONn8hpbduAn4_3lKzu75a3j_ni6WF-O1vklqsy5qjWNVuDKuuyBk25o7qy4Bgr1wCgCllxXWlecHBKaukqzqnjSkmhRFGl_ZR8PeRu_fB3xBBN1wSHbWt7HMZgQAkmhRapgCm5fEefh9H36XV7pVghVLlXVwfl_BCCx9psfdNZvzNAzb5189Z6wl-OkeO6w-qV_q85gesDsFtrtmHnrI-NazG40fvU4D7MQGm4ST_GXwDIBYtl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1848264874</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Safety First: Instrumentality for Reaching Safety Determines Attention Allocation Under Threat</title><source>PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Vogt, Julia ; Koster, Ernst H. W. ; De Houwer, Jan</creator><contributor>Pietromonaco, Paula ; DeSteno, David</contributor><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Julia ; Koster, Ernst H. W. ; De Houwer, Jan ; Pietromonaco, Paula ; DeSteno, David</creatorcontrib><description>Theories of attention to emotional information suggest that attentional processes prioritize threatening information. In this article, we suggest that attention will prioritize the events that are most instrumental to a goal in any given context, which in threatening situations is typically reaching safety. To test our hypotheses, we used an attentional cueing paradigm that contained cues signaling imminent threat (i.e., aversive noises) as well as cues that allowed participants to avoid threat (instrumental safety signals). Correct reactions to instrumental safety signals seemingly allowed participants to lower the presentation rate of the threat. Experiment 1 demonstrates that attention prioritizes instrumental safety signals over threat signals. Experiment 2 replicates this finding and additionally compares instrumental safety signals to other action-relevant signals controlling for action relevance as cause of the effects. Experiment 3 demonstrates that when actions toward threat signals permit to avoid threat, attention prioritizes threat signals. Taken together, these results support the view that instrumentality for reaching safety determines the allocation of attention under threat.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1528-3542</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1931-1516</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/emo0000251</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27869466</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Attention ; Attention - physiology ; Cues ; Emotions ; Female ; Human ; Humans ; Male ; Motivation ; Motivation - physiology ; Reaction Time - physiology ; Safety ; Threat ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 2017-04, Vol.17 (3), p.528-537</ispartof><rights>2016 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>(c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).</rights><rights>2016, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a387t-e8bf2b187f7f1903c09da1c227b111865d39d93631c8595cd330c38854846d363</citedby><orcidid>0000-0003-0488-5224 ; 0000-0002-3178-2805 ; 0000-0003-0792-476X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27869466$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Pietromonaco, Paula</contributor><contributor>DeSteno, David</contributor><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koster, Ernst H. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Houwer, Jan</creatorcontrib><title>Safety First: Instrumentality for Reaching Safety Determines Attention Allocation Under Threat</title><title>Emotion (Washington, D.C.)</title><addtitle>Emotion</addtitle><description>Theories of attention to emotional information suggest that attentional processes prioritize threatening information. In this article, we suggest that attention will prioritize the events that are most instrumental to a goal in any given context, which in threatening situations is typically reaching safety. To test our hypotheses, we used an attentional cueing paradigm that contained cues signaling imminent threat (i.e., aversive noises) as well as cues that allowed participants to avoid threat (instrumental safety signals). Correct reactions to instrumental safety signals seemingly allowed participants to lower the presentation rate of the threat. Experiment 1 demonstrates that attention prioritizes instrumental safety signals over threat signals. Experiment 2 replicates this finding and additionally compares instrumental safety signals to other action-relevant signals controlling for action relevance as cause of the effects. Experiment 3 demonstrates that when actions toward threat signals permit to avoid threat, attention prioritizes threat signals. Taken together, these results support the view that instrumentality for reaching safety determines the allocation of attention under threat.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Attention - physiology</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Motivation - physiology</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Threat</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1528-3542</issn><issn>1931-1516</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpd0ctqGzEUBmBREurE7SYPUAayKQmT6ugyI3Vn0lwMhkBrbytkzZl6wlxcSbPw20eu3QSijQ6Hjx_xi5ALoDdAefkNu4GmwyR8IGegOeQgoThJs2Qq51KwCTkP4ZlSEFyLj2TCSlVoURRn5PcvW2PcZfeND_F7Nu9D9GOHfbRtk9b14LOfaN2m6f9kR_oDI_qu6TFksxgTbYY-m7Xt4Oy_cdVX6LPlxqONn8hpbduAn4_3lKzu75a3j_ni6WF-O1vklqsy5qjWNVuDKuuyBk25o7qy4Bgr1wCgCllxXWlecHBKaukqzqnjSkmhRFGl_ZR8PeRu_fB3xBBN1wSHbWt7HMZgQAkmhRapgCm5fEefh9H36XV7pVghVLlXVwfl_BCCx9psfdNZvzNAzb5189Z6wl-OkeO6w-qV_q85gesDsFtrtmHnrI-NazG40fvU4D7MQGm4ST_GXwDIBYtl</recordid><startdate>201704</startdate><enddate>201704</enddate><creator>Vogt, Julia</creator><creator>Koster, Ernst H. W.</creator><creator>De Houwer, Jan</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0488-5224</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3178-2805</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0792-476X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201704</creationdate><title>Safety First: Instrumentality for Reaching Safety Determines Attention Allocation Under Threat</title><author>Vogt, Julia ; Koster, Ernst H. W. ; De Houwer, Jan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a387t-e8bf2b187f7f1903c09da1c227b111865d39d93631c8595cd330c38854846d363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Attention - physiology</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Motivation - physiology</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Threat</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koster, Ernst H. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Houwer, Jan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PsycArticles (via ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Emotion (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vogt, Julia</au><au>Koster, Ernst H. W.</au><au>De Houwer, Jan</au><au>Pietromonaco, Paula</au><au>DeSteno, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Safety First: Instrumentality for Reaching Safety Determines Attention Allocation Under Threat</atitle><jtitle>Emotion (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle><addtitle>Emotion</addtitle><date>2017-04</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>528</spage><epage>537</epage><pages>528-537</pages><issn>1528-3542</issn><eissn>1931-1516</eissn><abstract>Theories of attention to emotional information suggest that attentional processes prioritize threatening information. In this article, we suggest that attention will prioritize the events that are most instrumental to a goal in any given context, which in threatening situations is typically reaching safety. To test our hypotheses, we used an attentional cueing paradigm that contained cues signaling imminent threat (i.e., aversive noises) as well as cues that allowed participants to avoid threat (instrumental safety signals). Correct reactions to instrumental safety signals seemingly allowed participants to lower the presentation rate of the threat. Experiment 1 demonstrates that attention prioritizes instrumental safety signals over threat signals. Experiment 2 replicates this finding and additionally compares instrumental safety signals to other action-relevant signals controlling for action relevance as cause of the effects. Experiment 3 demonstrates that when actions toward threat signals permit to avoid threat, attention prioritizes threat signals. Taken together, these results support the view that instrumentality for reaching safety determines the allocation of attention under threat.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>27869466</pmid><doi>10.1037/emo0000251</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0488-5224</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3178-2805</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0792-476X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1528-3542
ispartof Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 2017-04, Vol.17 (3), p.528-537
issn 1528-3542
1931-1516
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1842549414
source PsycARTICLES
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Attention
Attention - physiology
Cues
Emotions
Female
Human
Humans
Male
Motivation
Motivation - physiology
Reaction Time - physiology
Safety
Threat
Young Adult
title Safety First: Instrumentality for Reaching Safety Determines Attention Allocation Under Threat
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T21%3A19%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Safety%20First:%20Instrumentality%20for%20Reaching%20Safety%20Determines%20Attention%20Allocation%20Under%20Threat&rft.jtitle=Emotion%20(Washington,%20D.C.)&rft.au=Vogt,%20Julia&rft.date=2017-04&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=528&rft.epage=537&rft.pages=528-537&rft.issn=1528-3542&rft.eissn=1931-1516&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/emo0000251&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1848264874%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a387t-e8bf2b187f7f1903c09da1c227b111865d39d93631c8595cd330c38854846d363%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1848264874&rft_id=info:pmid/27869466&rfr_iscdi=true