Martin M, Williams R M, Clark D M
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, England.
Behav Res Ther. 1991;29(2):147-60. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(91)90043-3.
Four experiments investigating the detailed nature of the attentional bias in anxiety are reported. Previous research using the Stroop task has shown that, when compared with non-patient controls, anxious patients are relatively slower at colour naming threat-related words than non-threat words. Experiments One and Two investigated whether this apparent attentional bias is a function of anxiety per se and/or is related to patient/non-patient status. Experiment One compared colour-naming times for threat and non-threat words in low, medium and high trait anxiety normal subjects. High anxiety was not associated with slower colour-naming times for threat words. Experiment Two compared generalized anxiety disorder patients with equally anxious non-patients and found that the patients were significantly slower at colour-naming threat words. Read aloud and dwell tasks were also included in these experiments in order to identify the mechanism of Stroop interference. Experiments Three and Four investigated whether anxious patients' attentional bias is specific to threat-related material or also extends to certain positive, emotional material. In Experiment Three words used in previous Stroop studies were rated for emotionality. Threat words were more emotional, as well as more threatening, than control words, indicating that previous studies have confounded threat and emotionality. Experiment Four compared colour-naming times for threat words, equally emotional positive words, and neutral words. Consistent with the emotionality hypothesis, generalized anxiety disorder patients were slower than non-anxious controls at colour naming both threat words and positive words. The theoretical, methodological and clinical implications of these results are discussed.
本文报告了四项关于焦虑症中注意偏向具体性质的实验研究。以往使用斯特鲁普任务的研究表明，与非患者对照组相比，焦虑症患者在对与威胁相关的词语进行颜色命名时，相对比对非威胁词语的颜色命名要慢。实验一和实验二研究了这种明显的注意偏向是否是焦虑本身的作用，和/或与患者/非患者状态有关。实验一比较了低、中、高特质焦虑正常受试者对威胁和非威胁词语的颜色命名时间。高焦虑与对威胁词语的颜色命名时间变慢无关。实验二将广泛性焦虑症患者与同样焦虑的非患者进行比较，发现患者在对威胁词语进行颜色命名时明显更慢。这些实验还包括大声朗读和停留任务，以确定斯特鲁普干扰的机制。实验三和实验四研究了焦虑症患者的注意偏向是否特定于与威胁相关的材料，还是也扩展到某些积极的情感材料。在实验三中，对以往斯特鲁普研究中使用的词语进行了情感评分。与对照词语相比，威胁词语更具情感性，也更具威胁性，这表明以往的研究混淆了威胁和情感性。实验四比较了对威胁词语、同样具有情感性的积极词语和中性词语的颜色命名时间。与情感性假设一致，广泛性焦虑症患者在对威胁词语和积极词语进行颜色命名时比非焦虑对照组要慢。本文讨论了这些结果的理论、方法和临床意义。
