EMPRESA DE CORREOS DE HONDURAS (HONDUCOR)

It was Milgram (1970) who first suggested that in busy environments there is no possibility of being able to process all the visual information that one encounters. A way to avoid unnecessary processing of irrelevant information is to selectively attend to what is most salient. That is, our attention is focused on the stimuli which are most relevant to our lives, that which we consider beneficial to us and that which we feel most threatened by. This selectivity is automatic and effortless, although at the same time is reflective of our own needs, thoughts and feelings. Scherer (1984) makes the distinction between the emotional and cognitive processes that are evoked when processing relevant stimuli. He states that there are always five points to look for when considering these processes: 1) motivation, 2) physiological activation, 3) motor behaviour, 4) subjective feeling state, and 5) cognitive processing of stimuli.

These five processes are demonstrated by alcoholics who exhibit preferential attention to alcohol cues in their environment over that of non- alcohol related stimuli (Cox et al., 2002; Cox et al., 2003; Faradi & Cox, 2009; Field, 2005; Jones & Bruce, 2006; Munafo & Albery, 2006; Robinson & Berridge, 2003; Sharma et al., 2001; Tiffany, 1990). This body of research

has shown that alcoholics, similar to other addicts, demonstrate greater motivation towards seeking alcohol-related stimuli, become physiologically aroused, change/redirect their behaviour and this is in response to relevant alcohol cues which are congruent to their affect state (Khantzian, 2007; Tiffany, 1990; Robinson & Berridge, 1993). Most of what we seek out and selectively attend to in our environment is dependent on our physiological and emotional needs, and it is safe to say that if we have maladaptive needs then we will attend to stimuli which will support these needs. Thus negative affect states and erroneous cognitions – both of which occur frequently in addicts – are maintained through this process of seeking, seeing and feeling.

A healthy response to threat and negativity is anxiety (Williams, et al., 1997; Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). Anxiety creates a response to threat which serves to protect us. From an evolutionary perspective, a hyper vigilance to threatening stimuli serves to protect us from danger, and this sense of and rapid detection of danger is considered to be a trait which has remained strong throughout evolution (Gilbert, 2001; Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). What is considered abnormal is when stimuli which are not threatening are afforded attention and fear which is disproportionate to its threat content (Lees Mogg & Bradley, 2005; Mogg, Garner & Bradley, 2007; Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). Research on affective disorders (including phobias) shows that highly anxious participants (where their anxiety levels are clinically defined as abnormal) are more likely to selectively attend to visual stimuli which they perceive as significant in terms of threat for longer and with a fast rate of detection (see Williams et al., 1997 for a review of the literature). Generalised anxiety disorders are characterised by excessive worry and irrational thoughts about everyday things which are usually disproportionate to the actual source of the fear (DSM-IV, 1994). Anxiety sufferers’ attentions are focused on sources of threat even if this threat level is low, because any level of threat would be regarded as salient for one’s protection. This hyper-vigilance in turn serves to maintain and exacerbate the symptoms of anxiety (Williams, et al. 1997).

Studies have confirmed that anxious individuals are more likely than controls to be sensitive to all levels of threat and this is marked by a lower perceptual threshold for threatening/negative stimuli, and a hyper-vigilance of

this stimuli (Calvo & Avero, 2005; Mogg, McNamara, Powys, Rawlinson, Seiffer, & Bradley, 2000). As shown using dot-probe tasks, highly anxious populations react faster to the dot which is presented in the place of threatening stimuli compared with neutral stimuli (Holmes, Bradley, Kragh, Nielsen, & Mogg, 2009; Mogg et al., 2000; Williams et al. 1997). Whereas anxious participants are likely to disengage from neutral stimuli fairly quickly they will stay fixated upon negative stimuli (Lees, et al., 2005; Mogg et al., 2000; Williams et al., 1997). A study by Mogg, et al., (2007) found that highly anxious participants had similar trends in orienting their gaze towards both fearful and angry faces compared to controls. What this study shows is that the stimulus does not have to be just threatening to hold the attention of anxiety sufferers, but generally negative, or at least perceived as negative. We also know that depression and anxiety can mean that patients have a negative memory bias for recalling negative facial stimuli over positive faces (Rohner, 2004). In another study by Tan, Ma, Gao, Wu and Fang (2011) anxious participants showed an inability to disengage from fearful stimuli and, particularly for male participants, an avoidance of fearful stimuli.

More interesting is that anxiety sufferers who have shown attentional biases to neutral stimuli and mildly negative stimuli have also exaggerated the emotional valence of neutral stimuli, perceiving it as much more intense than the control groups (Mogg et al., 2000; Williams et al., 1997; Wilson & MacLeod, 2003). This research suggests that one distinct difference between how those with and without anxiety process relevant information is their perception of all levels of emotional valence.

In Experiments 1 and 2 the main finding was that alcoholics as compared with the non-alcoholics showed a delay in attention to neutral as well as fearful stimuli and that it was suggested that the RT cost may be due to the faces being perceived as more intense/emotionally charged. Kornreich et al. (2013), Maurage et al. (2009) and Philippot et al., (1999) all found that alcoholics showed a tendency to overestimate emotions at mild and moderate levels. It is now essential to clarify whether the previous results of Experiments 1 and 2 are due to differences in alcoholic populations or anxiety.

There are several reasons to suppose that anxiety may have been responsible for the data obtained so far:

 Anxiety sufferers demonstrate enhanced selective attention to mild/moderate stimuli of interpersonal interest

 Anxiety sufferers have a low attention bias threshold for negative stimuli and/or

 Anxiety sufferers rate mild/moderate facial stimuli as more intense than perceived by control groups