Preferential attentional engagement drives attentional bias to snakes in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) and humans (Homo sapiens)

© 2018, The Author(s). In humans, attentional biases have been shown to negative (dangerous animals, physical threat) and positive (high caloric food, alcohol) stimuli. However, it is not clear whether these attentional biases reflect on stimulus driven, bottom up, or goal driven, top down, attentional processes. Here we show that, like humans, Japanese macaques show an attentional bias to snakes in a dot probe task (Experiment 1). Moreover, this attentional bias reflects on bottom up driven, preferential engagement of attention by snake images (Experiment 2a), a finding that was replicated in a study that used the same methodology in humans (Experiment 2b). These results are consistent with the notion that attentional bias to snakes reflects on an evolutionarily old, stimulus driven threat detection mechanism which is found in both species

Threat captures attention, but not automatically: Top-down goals modulate attentional orienting to threat distractors

The rapid orienting of attention to potential threats has been proposed to proceed outside of top-down control. However, paradigms that have been used to investigate this have struggled to separate the rapid orienting of attention (i.e. capture) from the later disengagement of focal attention that may be subject to top-down control. Consequently, it remains unclear whether and to what extent orienting to threat is contingent on top-down goals. The current study manipulated the goal-relevance of threat distractors (spiders), whilst a strict top-down attentional set was encouraged by presenting the saliently colored target and the threat distracter simultaneously for a limited time. The goal-relevance of threatening distractors was manipulated by including a spider amongst the possible target stimuli (Experiment 1: spider/cat targets) or excluding it (Experiment 2: bird/fish targets). Orienting and disengagement were disentangled by cueing attention away from or towards the threat prior to its onset. The results indicated that the threatening spider distractors elicited rapid orienting of attention when spiders were potentially goal-relevant (Experiment 1) but did so much less when they were irrelevant to the task goal (Experiment 2). Delayed disengagement from the threat distractors was even more strongly contingent on the task goal and occurred only when a spider was a possible target. These results highlight the role of top-down goals in attentional orienting to and disengagement from threat. © 2016 The Psychonomic Society, Inc

Support for e-cigarette regulations among Australian young adults

Background: Surveying support for various regulatory options relating to e-cigarettes can assist policymakers to identify those that have broad support and are therefore likely to be easier to implement. However, data on support for potential e-cigarette regulations in Australia are limited. To inform regulatory efforts, the present study assessed attitudes to the regulation of e-cigarettes among Australian young adults, the most prevalent users of e-cigarettes and therefore the most likely population segment to be affected by e-cigarette regulations. Methods: A total of 1116 Australians aged 18 to 25 years (59% female) completed an online survey where they were presented with various statements relating to the regulation of e-cigarettes and asked to report on the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each. Statements presented either a restrictive or non-restrictive approach to e-cigarette regulation. Results: Across all statements, 10-22% of respondents responded "don't know" while 23-35% neither agreed nor disagreed, indicating general ambivalence. There was a moderate level of support (33-37%) for regulating e-cigarette sales/use and treating e-cigarettes like tobacco products. Only 20% of respondents were in favour of allowing the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas. Smokers, e-cigarette users, and those who did not believe in the harms associated with e-cigarettes were typically less likely than other respondents to support restrictive approaches. Conclusions: The young Australian adults surveyed were somewhat supportive of restrictions around the sale and use of e-cigarettes, but generally opposed outright bans and any need for a prescription from a medical practitioner. Increasing awareness of the harms associated with the use of e-cigarettes represents a potential strategy to gaining regulatory support

Are avoidance biases in social anxiety due to biases in stimulus coding or in post-coding behavioral tendencies?

Contains fulltext : 219475.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)On the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT) high socially anxious (HSA) individuals exhibit increased behavioral avoidance of faces displaying emotional expressions. Two accounts could explain these findings: 1) HSA individuals have a heightened readiness to code faces in terms of emotionality, and all individuals behaviorally avoid faces coded as emotional (pre-behavior coding bias hypothesis), or 2) everyone is equally ready to code faces in terms of emotionality, but when faces are coded as emotional HSA have a heightened tendency to behaviorally avoid such stimuli (post coding behavioral bias hypothesis). To test these hypotheses, we created the Stimulus-Coding AAT. Participants categorized emotional and non-emotional faces in terms of either gender or emotional expression, before making a standard AAT response. Time to make each type of categorization, and to execute AAT responses following categorization, was assessed in 32 HSA and 32 LSA participants. Groups did not differ in their relative speed to categorize face stimuli on the two dimensions. When participants coded faces in terms of their emotionality, HSA relative to LSA participants demonstrated increased behavioral avoidance of emotional faces. We conclude that these findings are inconsistent with the pre-behavior coding bias hypothesis and support the post-coding behavioral bias hypothesis.7 p

Reliability and convergence of approach/avoidance bias assessment tasks in the food consumption domain

Theories of motivation posit that people will more readily approach positive or appetitive stimuli, and there has been growing interest in the relationship between biases in approach and avoidance behaviours for food cues and food craving and consumption behaviour. Two paradigms commonly employed by research to investigate this relationship are the approach-avoidance task (AAT) and the stimulus-response compatibility task (SRCT). However, it is yet to be determined whether the measures yielded by these tasks reflect the same processes operating in the food craving and consumption domain. The present study examined the internal reliability and convergence of AAT and SRCT paradigms in their assessment of biased approach to unhealthy compared with healthy food stimuli, and whether the measures yielded by the AAT and SRCT paradigms demonstrated associations with individual differences in food craving and eating behaviour. One hundred twenty-one participants completed an SRCT, an AAT using an arm movement response mode, and an AAT using a key-press response mode. The measures yielded comparable and acceptable levels of internal consistency, but convergence between the different task bias scores was modest or absent, and only approach bias as measured with the AAT task using an arm movement response mode was associated with self-report measures of eating behaviour and trait food craving. Thus, tasks did not converge strongly enough to be considered equivalent measures of approach/avoidance biases, and the AAT task using an arm movement response seems uniquely suited to detect approach biases argued to characterise maladaptive eating behaviour and craving.</p

Perceptions of the harm, addictiveness, and smoking cessation effectiveness of e-cigarettes among Australian young adults

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd An extensive body of evidence indicates that e-cigarette use is highest among young adults, prompting concerns about the potential renormalization of smoking behaviors in a population segment that is particularly vulnerable to tobacco smoking initiation. Increasing levels of e-cigarette use among young adults are likely a reflection of favorable beliefs about the benefits and risks associated with use, but research assessing perceptions of e-cigarettes in this population segment is limited. The aim of the present study was to assess young adults' perceptions of (i) the absolute and relative harm associated with e-cigarette use and (ii) the efficacy of these devices for smoking cessation. In a sample of 1116 Australian 18 to 25 year olds, three-quarters believed e-cigarettes have some level of harm (72%), just over half believed them to be addictive (57%), and substantial minorities reported that they did not know whether these products are harmful (20%) or addictive (34%). Two-fifths believed e-cigarettes are effective at helping people quit smoking (42%). Differences were observed by smoking status and e-cigarette user status on several variables, with a general trend of more positive perceptions towards e-cigarettes among smokers and users, particularly in relation to cessation efficacy. Results suggest that a substantial minority of young adults are unaware of the harms that may be associated with e-cigarettes, underscoring the importance of public health efforts that aim to provide accurate information about these devices

Authors’ reply to "Processing confusing procedures in the recent re-analysis of a cognitive bias modification meta-analysis"

Kruijt and Carlbring misrepresent the position conveyed in our commentary,1 wrongly attributing to us the suggestion ‘that we should only call CBM CBM if it is successful’. Our actual points are: (a) it cannot be claimed that cognitive bias has been modified when assessment data reveal that no modification of cognitive bias has taken place; and (b) the emotional impact of modifying cognitive bias cannot be determined from studies that fail to modify cognitive bias. Also, incorrectly, they describe our commentary as an ‘exposé on the correct question to metaanalyse’. We highlight the need to distinguish two quite different questions, without claiming that either is ‘correct’, and emphasise the resulting problems when meta-analyses fail to do so

Authors reply : Processing confusing procedures in the recent re-analysis of a cognitive bias modification meta-analysis

Kruijt and Carlbring misrepresent the position conveyed in our commentary,1 wrongly attributing to us the suggestion ‘that we should only call CBM CBM if it is successful’. Our actual points are: (a) it cannot be claimed that cognitive bias has been modified when assessment data reveal that no modification of cognitive bias has taken place; and (b) the emotional impact of modifying cognitive bias cannot be determined from studies that fail to modify cognitive bias. Also, incorrectly, they describe our commentary as an ‘exposé on the correct question to metaanalyse’. We highlight the need to distinguish two quite different questions, without claiming that either is ‘correct’, and emphasise the resulting problems when meta-analyses fail to do so

Food healthiness versus tastiness: Contrasting their impact on more and less successful healthy shoppers within a virtual food shopping task

A virtual shopping task was employed to illuminate why women who intend to shop healthily are differentially successful in doing so. Female undergraduates (N = 68) performed a modified approach and avoidance task that employed food items differing in healthiness and tastiness, and yielded relative speed to select and reject food items in a stylised supermarket. Participants categorised a food item either in terms of healthiness or tastiness, then pulled (selected) or pushed (rejected) the item using a joystick. Participants showed faster selection of tasty food after categorisation in terms of tastiness, irrespective of the food's healthiness. However, after categorisation in terms of healthiness, only more successful healthy food shoppers showed faster selection of healthy items regardless of tastiness. Less successful healthy food shoppers showed this effect only for tasty food, and displayed faster rejection of food items not considered tasty, regardless of their assessed healthiness. Thus, when participants who reported the greatest gap between their shopping intention and shopping behaviour were judging the healthiness of food items, their speed to select and reject items continued to be influenced by tastiness. This suggests that reducing incidental processing of food tastiness may reduce the intention-behaviour gap in healthy food shopping