Arousal and valence have dissociable effects on responses to schematic emotional faces.

Studies examining behavioural responses to emotional stimuli usually report one of two patterns of responses to negative stimuli. Some studies find faster responses to negative material. Other studies find slower responses to negative stimuli. While the attentional mechanisms proposed to explain these findings (attentional capture in the former case, delayed disengagement in the latter) are not at odds with one another, the behavioural findings do need to be reconciled. We posit that arousal, being the primary differentiator of threatening and nonthreatening stimuli, needs to be more carefully considered. To this end, two experiments were conducted evaluating the role of stimulus arousal and valence in the processing of schematic emotional faces. In Experiment 1, stimulus arousal was manipulated via the presence or absence of eyebrows in the schematic faces in a faces flanker task. Results showed faster responses to faces with eyebrows but no differences in the faces flanker asymmetry between faces with and without eyebrows. In Experiment 2, participants rated the faces on an evaluative space grid. Results showed the presence of the eyebrows had a greater impact on negative ratings for negative faces than for the other expressions. This suggests that stimulus valence and arousal were manipulated by the eyebrows and the reaction time differences could not be attributed purely to perceptual differences. Together these results suggests that both valence and arousal impact the processing of emotional schematic faces, and that these effects are dissociable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Dissociating affective and perceptual effects of schematic faces on attentional scope.

Attention allocation to positive and negative stimuli differs. For example, the flanker-interference asymmetry describes a pattern of results on flanker tasks using emotional stimuli, where a typical flanker-interference effect is observed for positive targets but not for negative targets. There are two dominant explanations for the flanker-interference asymmetry. According to the emotion-first explanation, negative targets are preferentially processed to facilitate the processing of potentially threatening stimuli. In contrast, feature-first explanations argue that the asymmetry results from differences in perceptual complexity between positive and negative stimuli. Three experiments used schematic emotional faces in a flanker task to directly compare these explanations. To manipulate the perceptual complexity of the stimuli, an enclosing circle was present on half of the trials. In all three experiments, reaction times showed the expected flanker-interference asymmetry, but the pattern was not influenced by the presence of the circle. However, event-related potentials showed that perceptual complexity influenced both the structural encoding and evaluative processing of the faces in the N170 and P3b time windows. These results suggest that both perceptual complexity and emotional valence play an important role in the processing of schematic emotional faces, but that emotional valence may have a stronger effect at evaluative stages of processing. Other findings show that the enclosing circle may alter the perceived emotional expression of neutral faces. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The role of selective attention in the positivity offset: Evidence from event related potentials.

Some research suggests that positive and negative valence stimuli may be processed differently. For example, negative material may capture and hold attention more readily than equally arousing positive material. This is called the negativity bias, and it has been observed as both behavioural and electroencephalographic (EEG) effects. Consequently, it has been attributed to both automatic and elaborative processes. However, at the lowest levels of arousal, faster reaction times and stronger EEG responses to positive material have been observed. This is called the positivity offset, and the underlying cognitive mechanism is less understood. To study the role of selective attention in the positivity offset, participants completed a negative affective priming (NAP) task modified to dissociate priming for positive and negative words. The task required participants to indicate the valence of a target word, while simultaneously ignoring a distractor. In experiment 1, a behavioural facilitation effect (faster response time) was observed for positive words, in stark contrast to the original NAP task. These results were congruent with a previously reported general categorization advantage for positive material. In experiment 2, participants performed the task while EEG was recorded. In additional to replicating the behavioural results from experiment 1, positive words elicited a larger Late Positive Potential (LPP) component on ignored repetition relative to control trials. Surprisingly, negative words elicited a larger LPP than positive words on control trials. These results suggest that the positivity offset may reflect a greater sensitivity to priming effects due to a more flexible attentional set.