Psychological Research

, Volume 49, Issue 2–3, pp 189–195 | Cite as

Cognitive functioning and anxiety

  • Michael W. Eysenck
  • Colin MacLeod
  • Andrew Mathews
Article

Summary

Various possible differences in cognitive functioning between those high and low in trait anxiety are considered. Particular emphasis is paid to the hypothesis that individuals high in trait anxiety tend to approach threatening stimuli, whereas those low in trait anxiety tend to avoid such stimuli. The evidence indicates that there are such differences in the processing of threatening stimuli as a function of trait anxiety. However, these differences are found only under certain conditions, for example, when threatening and nonthreatening stimuli are presented concurrently, and when minor rather than major threat is involved.

The differences between those high and low in trait anxiety encompass pre-attentive, attentional, and interpretative mechanisms. As a consequence, any adequate theory of trait anxiety must take proper account of cognitive mechanisms and functioning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 8. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bitterman, M. E., & Kniffin, C. W. (1953). Manifest anxiety and “perceptual defense”. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 248–252.Google Scholar
  3. Blaylock, B. A. H. (1963). Repression-sensitization, word association responses, and incidental recall. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, G., & Mathews, A. (1983). Cognitive processes in anxiety. Advances in Behavior Research & Therapy, 5, 51–62.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, D. (1972). Repression-sensitization and duration of visual attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 949–950.Google Scholar
  7. Deffenbacher, J. L. (1978). Worry, emotionality, and task-generated interference in test anxiety: An empirical test of attentional theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 248–254.Google Scholar
  8. Dixon, N. F. (1981). Preconscious processing. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Dornic, S., & Fernaeus, S.-E. (1981). Individual differences in high-load tasks: The effect of verbal distraction (Rep. No. 569). Stockholm: Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  10. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety, learning, and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 363–385.Google Scholar
  12. Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal: Cognition and performance. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Greenbaum, M. (1956). Manifest anxiety and tachistoscopic recognition of facial photographs. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 6, 245–248.Google Scholar
  15. Haney, J. N. (1973). Approach-avoidance reactions by repressors and sensitizers to ambiguity in a structured free-association task. Psychological Reports, 33, 97–98.Google Scholar
  16. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lewinsohn, P. M., Berquist, W. H., & Brelje, T. (1972). The repression-sensitization dimension and emotional response to stimuli. Psychological Reports, 31, 707–716.Google Scholar
  18. MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 15–20.Google Scholar
  19. Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1986). Discrimination of threat cues without awareness in anxiety state. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 131–138.Google Scholar
  20. Navon, D., & Margalit, B. (1983). Allocation of attention according to informativeness in visual recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 497–512.Google Scholar
  21. Seamon, J. G., Marsh, R. L., & Brody, N. (1984). Critical importance of exposure duration for affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 465–469.Google Scholar
  22. Simpson, G. B. (1984). Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 316–340.Google Scholar
  23. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1977). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Form Y-1. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tempone, V. J. (1962). Extension of the repression-sensitization hypothesis to success and failure experience. Psychological Reports, 15, 39–45.Google Scholar
  25. Ullmann, L. P. (1962). An empirically derived MMPI scale which measures facilitation-inhibition of recognition of threatening stimuli. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 127–132.Google Scholar
  26. Van Egeren, L. (1968). Repression and sensitization: Sensitivity and recognition criteria. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3, 1–8.Google Scholar
  27. Wagstaff, G. F. (1974). The effects of repression-sensitization on a brightness scaling measure of perceptual defence. British Journal of Psychology, 65, 395–401.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.Google Scholar
  29. Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael W. Eysenck
    • 1
  • Colin MacLeod
    • 2
  • Andrew Mathews
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.St. George's Hospital Medical SchoolTooting, LondonUK

Personalised recommendations