Perceiving the Self and Emotions with an Anxious Mind: Evidence from an Implicit Perceptual Task
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- 1.
- Self-positivity would be diminished in the anxious group. If this were true, it would be reflected in slower and less accurate responses to self-related and positive stimuli in the anxious group;
- 2.
- Self-positivity would be related to the severity of anxiety, although the nature of this relation could not be predicted based on the current knowledge. This hypothesis would be supported if faster or slower responses to self-related or emotional stimuli could predict anxiety levels.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Stimuli
2.3. Procedure and Measures
2.3.1. Self-Emotional Shape-Label Matching Task
2.3.2. Anxiety
2.4. Data Analysis
2.4.1. Are the Self-Bias and Positivity Bias Weakened in the Anxious Group Compared with Controls?
2.4.2. What Are the Individual Differences in Self-Bias, Positivity Bias, and Severity of Anxiety?
3. Results
3.1. Are the Self-Bias and Positivity Bias Weakened in the Anxious Group Compared with Controls?
3.2. What Are the Individual Differences in Self-Bias, Positivity Bias, and Severity of Anxiety?
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Performance | Condition | F | df | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Accuracy | All | 0.30 | 4,79 | 0.878 |
Happy | 0.06 | 1,82 | 0.809 | |
Neutral | 0.15 | 1,82 | 0.698 | |
Sad | 0.24 | 1,82 | 0.628 | |
Line | 0.72 | 1,82 | 0.399 | |
Reaction Time | All | 2.17 | 4,79 | 0.081 |
Happy | 1.25 | 1,82 | 0.266 | |
Neutral | 0.01 | 1,82 | 0.925 | |
Sad | 0.61 | 1,82 | 0.437 | |
Line | 0.34 | 1,82 | 0.562 |
Performance | Condition | M | SD | Mean Difference | t | df | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accuracy (%) | Line | 0.795 | 0.127 | |||||
Happy | 0.808 | 0.124 | −0.013 | −1.34 | 83 | 0.184 | ||
Neutral | 0.803 | 0.124 | −0.008 | −0.89 | 83 | 0.374 | ||
Sad | 0.796 | 0.114 | <−0.001 | −0.08 | 83 | 0.933 | ||
Reaction Time (ms) | Line | 723.8 | 88 | |||||
Happy | 706.3 | 87.1 | 17.5 | 3.19 | 83 | 0.002 ** | ||
Neutral | 714.9 | 88 | 8.9 | 1.67 | 83 | 0.099 | ||
Sad | 723.2 | 81.8 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 83 | 0.919 |
References
- Bandelow, B.; Michaelis, S. Epidemiology of anxiety disorders in the 21st century. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2015, 17, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mind. Anxiety and Panic Attacks | Mind, the Mental Health Charity—Help for Mental Health Problems. 2021. Available online: https://www.mind.org.uk/ (accessed on 29 August 2021).
- Hoge, E.A.; Ivkovic, A.; Fricchione, G.L. Generalized anxiety disorder: Diagnosis and treatment. BMJ 2012, 345, e7500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McIvor, L.; Sui, J.; Malhotra, T.; Drury, D.; Kumar, S. Self-referential processing and emotion context insensitivity in major depressive disorder. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2020, 53, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Callahan, C.P.; Moser, J.S. A mind full of self: Self-referential processing as a mechanism underlying the therapeutic effects of mindfulness training on internalizing disorders. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 92, 172–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muranaka, S.; Sasaki, J. The effect of enumeration of self-relevant words on self-focused attention and repetitive negative thoughts. Front. Psych. 2018, 9, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, A.M.; Voogd, L.; Wiers, R.W.; Salemink, E. Biases in attention and interpretation in adolescents with varying levels of anxiety and depression. Cogn. Emot. 2018, 32, 1478–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eysenck, M.W.; Fajkowska, M. Anxiety and depression: Toward overlapping and distinctive features. Cogn. Emot. 2018, 32, 1391–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, A.T.; Clark, D.A. An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes. Behav. Res. Ther. 1997, 35, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, A.T.; Haigh, A.P. Advances in cognitive theory and therapy: The generic cognitive model. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2014, 10, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rapee, R.M.; Heimberg, R.G. A cognitive-behavioural model of anxiety in social phobia. Behav. Res. Ther. 1997, 35, 741–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trapnell, P.; Campbell, J. Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 76, 284–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alexopoulos, T.; Muller, D.; Ric, F.; Marendaz, C. I, me, mine: Automatic attentional capture by self-related stimuli. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beggan, J.K. On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 62, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, T.; Siebold, A.; van Zoest, W. Testing the idea of privileged awareness of self-relevant information. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2016, 42, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Moray, N. Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1959, 11, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, S.J.; Turk, D.J.; Macdonald, L.M.; Macrae, C.N. Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Conscious. Cogn. 2008, 17, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moseley, R.L.; Liu, C.H.; Gregory, N.J.; Smith, P.; Baron-Cohen, S.; Sui, J. Levels of self-representation and their sociocognitive correlates in late-diagnosed autistic adults. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2021, 30, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sui, J.; He, X.; Humphreys, G.W. Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2012, 38, 1105–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sui, J.; Gu, X. Self as object: Emerging trends in self research. Trends Neurosci. 2017, 40, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pool, E.; Brosch, T.; Delplanque, S.; Sander, D. Attentional bias for positive emotional stimuli: A meta-analytic investigation. Psychol. Bull. 2015, 142, 79–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constable, M.D.; Becker, M.L.; Oh, Y.-I.; Knoblich, G. Affective compatibility with the self modulates the self-prioritisation effect. Cogn. Emot. 2020, 35, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, H.; Wang, Z.; Li, C.; Gao, X. Prioritised self-referential processing is modulated by emotional arousal. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2020, 73, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stolte, M.; Humphreys, G.; Yankouskaya, A.; Sui, J. Dissociating biases towards the self and positive emotion. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2017, 70, 1011–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yankouskaya, A.; Sui, J. Self-positivity or self-negativity as a function of the Medial Prefrontal Cortex. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, C.-P.; Lan, Y.; Macrae, N.; Sui, J. Good me bad me: Prioritization of the good-self during perceptual decision-making. Collabra. Psychol. 2020, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schäfer, S.; Frings, C. Understanding self-prioritisation: The prioritisation of self-relevant stimuli and its relation to the individual self-esteem. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2019, 31, 813–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalenzaga, S.; Jouhaud, V. The self-reference effect in memory: An implicit way to assess affective self-representations in social anxiety. Memory 2018, 26, 894–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bar-Haim, Y.; Lamy, D.; Pergamin, L.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; van IJzendoorn, M.H. Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 133, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Günther, V.; Kropidlowski, A.; Schmidt, F.M.; Koelkebeck, K.; Kersting, A.; Suslow, T. Attentional processes during emotional face perception in social anxiety disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of eye-tracking findings. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2021, 111, 110353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, J. Selective memory bias for self-threatening memories in trait anxiety. Cogn. Emot. 2013, 27, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koster, E.H.W.; Crombez, G.; Verschuere, B.; Van Damme, S.; Wiersema, J.R. Components of attentional bias to threat in high trait anxiety: Facilitated engagement, impaired disengagement, and attentional avoidance. Behav. Res. Ther. 2006, 44, 1757–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gaebler, M.; Daniels, J.K.; Lamke, J.P.; Fydrich, T.; Walter, H. Behavioural and neural correlates of self-focused emotion regulation in social anxiety disorder. J. Psychiatry Neurosci. 2014, 39, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MacLeod, C.; Mathews, A.; Tata, P. Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1986, 95, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinholdt-Dunne, M.L.; Mogg, K.; Bradley, B.P. Effects of anxiety and attention control on processing pictorial and linguistic emotional information. Behav. Res. Ther. 2009, 47, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sim, J.; Lewis, M. The size of a pilot study for a clinical trial should be calculated in relation to considerations of precision and efficiency. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 65, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inquisit 6 [Computer Software]. 2020. Available online: https://www.millisecond.com (accessed on 1 September 2020).
- Lee, N.A.; Martin, D.; Sui, J. A pre-existing self-referential anchor is not necessary for self-prioritisation. Acta Psychol. 2021, 219, 103362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.; Lowe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 1092–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Volz, H.-P.; Saliger, J.; Kasper, S.; Möller, H.-J.; Seifritz, E. Subsyndromal generalised anxiety disorder: Operationalisation and epidemiology—A systematic literature survey. Int. J Psychiatry Clin. Prac. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, A.G.T.T. Using the GAD-7 and GAD-2 generalized anxiety disorder screeners with student-athletes: Empirical and clinical perspectives. Sport Psychol. 2020, 34, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, A.T.; Steer, R.A.; Brown, G.K. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II; Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarason, I.G. Anxiety, self-preoccupation and attention. Anxiety Res. 1988, 1, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sui, J.; Sun, Y.; Peng, K.; Humphreys, G.W. The automatic and the expected self: Separating self- and familiarity biases effects by manipulating stimulus probability. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2014, 76, 1176–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Humphreys, G.W.; Sui, J. The salient self: Social saliency effects based on self-bias. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2015, 27, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbs, C.; Sui, J.; Kessler, D.; Munafò, M.; Button, K. Self-processing in relation to emotion and reward processing in depression. Psychol. Med. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sui, J. Self-reference acts as a golden thread in binding. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2016, 20, 482–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sui, J.; Greenshaw, A.J.; Macrae, C.N.; Cao, B. Self research: A new pathway to precision psychiatry. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 293, 276–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Match | Mismatch | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Happy | Neutral | Sad | Line | Happy | Neutral | Sad | Line | ||
Self-friend group 1 | Self | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Friend * | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
Self-stranger group 2 | Self | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Stranger * | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome variable | ||||||||||
1. GAD | 11.1 | 4.49 | — | |||||||
Control variable | ||||||||||
2. Age | 20.9 | 2.55 | −0.14 | — | ||||||
3. BDI 1 | 19.2 | 10.83 | 0.47 *** | −0.15 | ||||||
Predictor variables | — | |||||||||
4. Happy face, self-shape RTs | 694.5 | 86.5 | −0.10 | 0.07 | −0.16 | — | ||||
5. Neutral face, self-shape RTs | 706.7 | 99.46 | −0.11 | 0.15 | −0.11 | 0.73 *** | — | |||
6. Sad face, self-shape RTs | 715.1 | 92.49 | 0.06 | 0.02 | −0.02 | 0.72 *** | 0.64 *** | — | ||
7. Happy face, other-shape RTs | 723 | 109.91 | −0.09 | −0.04 | −0.07 | 0.52 *** | 0.55 *** | 0.40 ** | — | |
8. Neutral face, other-shape RTs | 720.2 | 105.13 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −0.13 | 0.51 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.41 *** | 0.81 *** | |
9. Sad face, other-shape RTs | 740.4 | 108.64 | 0.18 | −0.27 * | −0.00 | 0.47 *** | 0.36 ** | 0.41 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.81 *** |
Predictors | R2 | ΔR² | B | Beta | t |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | 0.23 | ||||
Age | −0.12 | −0.05 | −0.57 | ||
BDI | 0.19 | 0.46 | 3.92 *** | ||
Step 2 | 0.25 | 0.02 | |||
Age | −0.08 | −0.05 | −0.40 | ||
BDI | 0.18 | 0.44 | 3.64 *** | ||
Happy face, self-shape RTs | −0.00 | −0.07 | −0.37 | ||
Neutral face, self-shape RTs | −0.01 | −0.14 | −0.79 | ||
Sad face, self-shape RTs | 0.01 | 0.21 | 1.20 | ||
Step 3 | 0.36 | 0.11 * | |||
Age | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.45 | ||
BDI | 0.18 | 0.44 | 3.71 *** | ||
Happy face, self-shape RTs | −0.01 | −0.15 | −0.74 | ||
Neutral face, self-shape RTs | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | ||
Sad face, self-shape RTs | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.70 | ||
Happy face, other-shape RTs | −0.02 | −0.48 | −2.24 * | ||
Neutral face, other-shape RTs | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.34 | ||
Sad face, other-shape RTs | 0.02 | 0.51 | 2.24 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feldborg, M.; Lee, N.A.; Hung, K.; Peng, K.; Sui, J. Perceiving the Self and Emotions with an Anxious Mind: Evidence from an Implicit Perceptual Task. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12096. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212096
Feldborg M, Lee NA, Hung K, Peng K, Sui J. Perceiving the Self and Emotions with an Anxious Mind: Evidence from an Implicit Perceptual Task. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(22):12096. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212096
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeldborg, Michella, Naomi A. Lee, Kalai Hung, Kaiping Peng, and Jie Sui. 2021. "Perceiving the Self and Emotions with an Anxious Mind: Evidence from an Implicit Perceptual Task" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 22: 12096. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212096