ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020
The influence of threat and aversive motivation on conflict processing in the Stroop task.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trichotomy revisited: A monolithic theory of attentional control.Vision research · 2024Article
- Combined influence of valence and statistical learning on the control of attention II: Evidence from within-domain additivity.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Parsing the contributions of negative affect vs. aversive motivation to cognitive control: an experimental investigation.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- The influence of associative reward learning on motor inhibition.Psychological research · 2022Article
- The past, present, and future of selection history.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2021Review
- Punishment-modulated attentional capture is context specific.Motivation science · 2021Article
- Inertia in value-driven attention.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Motivated attention can be driven by the desire to maximize gains or escape punishment. In the Stroop task, when rewards can be obtained by responding quickly to certain colors, corresponding color words are prioritized and produce enhanced interference, suggesting transfer of an attentional bias from color hues to color words. In the present study, we replicated this transfer effect using reward and conducted a parallel experiment exchanging the prospect of reward (appetitive motivation) with the opportunity to avert punishment (aversive motivation). Participants were required to identify the color (hue) of color words and received electric shocks for responses to particular hues that were slow or incorrect. Shock-related words similarly impaired color-ink naming performance. In contrast to prior studies with reward, however, responding to hues associated with shock was also impaired, with threat producing an increase in error rate that ironically resulted in more frequent shocks. Our results suggest that aversive and appetitive motivation affect attention to task-relevant information differently, although each produces a common bias in automatic stimulus processing presumably driven by valence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.