Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Affective flanker tasks often present affective facial expressions as stimuli. However, it is not clear whether the identity of the person on the target picture needs to be the same for the flanker stimuli or whether it is better to use pictures of different persons as flankers. While Grose-Fifer, Rodrigues, Hoover & Zottoli (Advances in Cognitive Psychology 9(2):81–91, 2013) state that attentional focus might be captured by processing the differences between faces, i.e. the identity, and therefore use pictures of the same individual as target and flanker stimuli, Munro, Dywan, Harris, McKee, Unsal & Segalowitz (Biological Psychology, 76:31–42, 2007) propose an advantage in presenting pictures of a different individual as flankers. They state that participants might focus only on small visual changes when targets and flankers are from the same individual instead of processing the affective content of the stimuli. The present study manipulated face identity in a between-subject design. Through investigation of behavioral measures as well as diffusion model parameters, we conclude that both types of flankers work equally efficient. This result seems best supported by recent accounts that propose an advantage of emotional processing over identity processing in face recognition. In the present study, there is no evidence that the processing of the face identity attracts sufficient attention to interfere with the affective evaluation of the target and flanker faces.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Blagrove, E., & Watson, D. G. (2014). Ignoring real faces: effects of valence, threat, and salience. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 76, 725–745. CrossRef
Eimer, M., & Holmes, A. (2002). An ERP study on the time course of emotional face processing. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 13(4), 1–5.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. CrossRef
Lai, V. T., Hagoort, P., & Casasanto, D. (2012). Affective primacy vs. cognitive primacy: dissolving the debate. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–8. CrossRef
Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Hawk, S. T., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition and Emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388. CrossRef
Pe, M. L., Vandekerckhove, J., & Kuppens, P. (2013). A diffusion model account of the relationship between the emotional flanker task and rumination and depression. Emotion, 13(1), 1–9. CrossRef
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108. CrossRef
Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology a practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 1–18.
White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., Vasey, M., & McKoon, G. (2008). Dysphoria and memory of emotional material: a diffusion-model analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 23(1), 181–205. CrossRef
Zhou, P., Yang, G., Nan, W., & Liu, X. (2015). The time course of attentional modulation on emotional conflict processing. Cognition and Emotion, 1–17.
- Processing of face identity in the affective flanker task: a diffusion model analysis
Christina J. Mueller
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg