Advanced search
2 files | 743.99 KB Add to list

Evaluative priming reveals dissociable effects of cognitive vs. physiological anxiety on action monitoring

Lien De Saedeleer (UGent) and Gilles Pourtois (UGent)
(2016) EMOTION. 16(4). p.498-514
Author
Organization
Abstract
Performance monitoring enables the rapid detection of mismatches between goals or intentions and actions, as well as subsequent behavioral adjustment by means of enhanced attention control. These processes are not encapsulated, but they are readily influenced by affective or motivational variables, including negative affect. Here we tested the prediction that worry, the cognitive component of anxiety, and arousal, its physiological counterpart, can each influence specific processes during performance monitoring. In 2 experiments, participants were asked to discriminate the valence of emotional words that were preceded by either correct (good) or incorrect (bad) actions, serving as primes in a standard evaluative priming procedure. In Experiment 1 (n = 36) we examined the influence of trait worry and arousal. Additionally, we included a face priming task to examine the specificity of this effect. Stepwise linear regression analyses showed that increased worry, but not arousal, weakened the evaluative priming effect and therefore the rapid and automatic processing of actions as good or bad. By contrast, arousal, but not worry, increased posterror slowing. In Experiment 2 (n = 30) state worry was induced using an anagram task. Effects of worry on action monitoring were trait but not state dependent, and only evidenced when actions were directly used as primes. These results suggest a double dissociation between worry and arousal during performance monitoring.
Keywords
ANTERIOR CINGULATE, STATE WORRY QUESTIONNAIRE, TRAIT ANXIETY, AUTOMATIC ACTIVATION, TEMPORAL DYNAMICS, CLINICAL ANXIETY, TRIPARTITE MODEL, RESPONSE TASKS, BRAIN ACTIVITY, PHOBIC IMAGES, anxiety, worry, arousal, priming, action

Downloads

  • DeSaedeleer Pourtois Emotion GP.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 689.51 KB
  • DSFS DeSaedeleer Pourtois Emotion GP.pdf
    • data factsheet
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 54.48 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
De Saedeleer, Lien, and Gilles Pourtois. “Evaluative Priming Reveals Dissociable Effects of Cognitive Vs. Physiological Anxiety on Action Monitoring.” EMOTION 16.4 (2016): 498–514. Print.
APA
De Saedeleer, L., & Pourtois, G. (2016). Evaluative priming reveals dissociable effects of cognitive vs. physiological anxiety on action monitoring. EMOTION, 16(4), 498–514.
Chicago author-date
De Saedeleer, Lien, and Gilles Pourtois. 2016. “Evaluative Priming Reveals Dissociable Effects of Cognitive Vs. Physiological Anxiety on Action Monitoring.” Emotion 16 (4): 498–514.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
De Saedeleer, Lien, and Gilles Pourtois. 2016. “Evaluative Priming Reveals Dissociable Effects of Cognitive Vs. Physiological Anxiety on Action Monitoring.” Emotion 16 (4): 498–514.
Vancouver
1.
De Saedeleer L, Pourtois G. Evaluative priming reveals dissociable effects of cognitive vs. physiological anxiety on action monitoring. EMOTION. 2016;16(4):498–514.
IEEE
[1]
L. De Saedeleer and G. Pourtois, “Evaluative priming reveals dissociable effects of cognitive vs. physiological anxiety on action monitoring,” EMOTION, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 498–514, 2016.
@article{6994629,
  abstract     = {Performance monitoring enables the rapid detection of mismatches between goals or intentions and actions, as well as subsequent behavioral adjustment by means of enhanced attention control. These processes are not encapsulated, but they are readily influenced by affective or motivational variables, including negative affect. Here we tested the prediction that worry, the cognitive component of anxiety, and arousal, its physiological counterpart, can each influence specific processes during performance monitoring. In 2 experiments, participants were asked to discriminate the valence of emotional words that were preceded by either correct (good) or incorrect (bad) actions, serving as primes in a standard evaluative priming procedure. In Experiment 1 (n = 36) we examined the influence of trait worry and arousal. Additionally, we included a face priming task to examine the specificity of this effect. Stepwise linear regression analyses showed that increased worry, but not arousal, weakened the evaluative priming effect and therefore the rapid and automatic processing of actions as good or bad. By contrast, arousal, but not worry, increased posterror slowing. In Experiment 2 (n = 30) state worry was induced using an anagram task. Effects of worry on action monitoring were trait but not state dependent, and only evidenced when actions were directly used as primes. These results suggest a double dissociation between worry and arousal during performance monitoring.},
  author       = {De Saedeleer, Lien and Pourtois, Gilles},
  issn         = {1528-3542},
  journal      = {EMOTION},
  keywords     = {ANTERIOR CINGULATE,STATE WORRY QUESTIONNAIRE,TRAIT ANXIETY,AUTOMATIC ACTIVATION,TEMPORAL DYNAMICS,CLINICAL ANXIETY,TRIPARTITE MODEL,RESPONSE TASKS,BRAIN ACTIVITY,PHOBIC IMAGES,anxiety,worry,arousal,priming,action},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {498--514},
  title        = {Evaluative priming reveals dissociable effects of cognitive vs. physiological anxiety on action monitoring},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000149},
  volume       = {16},
  year         = {2016},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: