Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 70, Issue 8, pp 1416–1434 | Cite as

Attentional effects of negative faces: Top-down contingent or involuntary?



Recent research has substantiated that schematic negative faces are found more efficiently than positive faces among crowds of distractor faces of varying set sizes. The present study asks whether this relative search asymmetry (RSA) is intention driven or due to involuntary attentional capture. To that aim, participants were first tested in a condition in which negative and positive faces were searched for, and then in a condition in which negative or positive schematic faces appeared at chance level at the position of the target (valid trials) or of a distractor (invalid trials), the faces thus being task irrelevant (the 1/n paradigm). The expected search benefit for valid negative-face target trials most clearly occurred when participants searched for a target defined by a conjunction of color and position; when the target was defined either by an orientation or color singleton, we found rather weak or no evidence for involuntary attention capture by negative faces. We see the results as being (1) evidence that the RSA is partly based on stimulus-driven factors that occur independently of the intention to search for a positive or negative face, and (2) consistent with the assumption that the effects are mainly due to a more efficient rejection of positive-face than of negative-face distractors, rather than being due to attentional capture by the target


  1. Bacon, W. F., & Egeth, H. E. (1994). Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 485–496.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, S. I. (2007). Irrelevant singletons in pop-out search: Attentional capture or filtering costs? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 764–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calvo, M. G., & Avero, P. (2005). Time course of attentional bias to emotional scenes in anxiety: Gaze direction and duration. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dolan, R. J. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science, 298, 1191–1194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eastwood, J. D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. M. (2001). Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1004–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eastwood, J. D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. M. (2003). Negative facial expression captures attention and disrupts performance. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 352–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1993). Contingent attentional capture: A reply to Yantis (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 682–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox, E., Lester, V., Russo, R., Bowles, R. J., Pichler, A., & Dutton, K. (2000). Facial expressions of emotion: Are angry faces detected more efficiently? Cognition & Emotion, 14, 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 681–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox, E., Russo, R., & Dutton, K. (2002). Attentional bias for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson, B. S., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Surprise! An unexpected color singleton does not capture attention in visual search. Psychological Science, 9, 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 917–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horstmann, G. (2002). Evidence for attentional capture by a surprising color singleton in visual search. Psychological Science, 13, 499–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horstmann, G. (2005). Attentional capture by an unannounced color singleton depends on expectation discrepancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1039–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horstmann, G. (2006). The time course of intended and unintended allocation of attention. Psychological Research, 70, 13–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horstmann, G. (2007). Preattentive face processing: What do visual search experiments with schematic faces tell us? Visual Cognition, 15, 799–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horstmann, G. (in press). Visual search for schematic affective faces: Stability and variability of search slopes with different instances. Cognition & Emotion.Google Scholar
  20. Horstmann, G., & Bauland, A. (2006). Search asymmetries with real faces: Testing the anger-superiority effect. Emotion, 6, 193–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horstmann, G., Scharlau, I., & Ansorge, U. (2006). More efficient rejection of happy than of angry face distractors in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1067–1073.Google Scholar
  22. James, W (1884). What is emotion? Mind, 9, 188–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 346–354.Google Scholar
  26. Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2004). Does imminent threat capture and hold attention? Emotion, 4, 312–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2005). Signals for threat modulate attentional capture and holding: Fear-conditioning and extinction during the exogenous cueing task. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 771–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LeDoux, J. (1998). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  29. Lipp, O. V. (2006). Of snakes and flowers: Does preferential detection of pictures of fear-relevant animals in visual search reflect on fearrelevance? Emotion, 6, 296–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lipp, O. V., & Derakshan, N. (2005). Attentional bias to pictures of fear-relevant animals in a dot probe task. Emotion, 5, 365–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipp, O. V., Derakshan, N., Waters, A. M., & Logies, S. (2004). Snakes and cats in the flower bed: Fast detection is not specific to pictures of fear-relevant animals. Emotion, 4, 233–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipp, O. V., & Waters, A. M. (2007). When danger lurks in the background: Attentional capture by animal fear-relevant distractors is specific and selectively enhanced by animal fear. Emotion, 7, 192–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacLean, P. D. (1949). Psychosomatic disease and the “visceral brain”: Recent developments bearing on the Papez theory of emotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 11, 338–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Miltner, W. H. R., Krieschel, S., Hecht, H., Trippe, R., & Weiss, T. (2004). Eye movements and behavioral responses to threatening and nonthreatening stimuli during visual search in phobic and nonphobic subjects. Emotion, 4, 323–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nothdurft, H.-C. (1993). Faces and facial expressions do not pop out. Perception, 22, 1287–1298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. (2001). The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Purcell, D. G., Stewart, A. L., & Skov, R. B. (1996). It takes a confounded face to pop out of a crowd. Perception, 25, 1091–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rauschenberger, R., & Yantis, S. (2006). Perceptual encoding efficiency in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rinck, M., Reinecke, A., Ellwart, T., Heuer, K., & Becker, E. S. (2005). Speeded detection and increased distraction in fear of spiders: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 235–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 147–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suzuki, S., & Cavanagh, P. (1995). Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object inferiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 901–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 599–606.Google Scholar
  44. Todd, S., & Kramer, A. F. (1994). Attentional misguidance in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 198–210.Google Scholar
  45. Treisman, A. [M.] (1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Treisman, A. [M.] (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.Google Scholar
  47. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Treisman, A. [M.], & Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Turatto, M., & Galfano, G. (2001). Attentional capture by color without any relevant attentional set. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 286–297.Google Scholar
  50. Turatto, M., Galfano, G., Gardini, S., & Mascetti, G. G. (2004). Stimulus- driven attentional capture: An empirical comparison of display-size and distance methods. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 297–324.Google Scholar
  51. Vuilleumier, P., Armony, J. L., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2001). Effects of attention and emotion on face processing in the human brain: An event-related fMRI study. Neuron, 30, 829–841.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vuilleumier, P., & Schwartz, S. (2001). Emotional facial expressions capture attention. Neurology, 56, 153–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. White, M. (1995). Preattentive analysis of facial expressions of emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 9, 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White, M. (1996). Anger recognition is independent of spatial attention. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 25, 30–35.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, M. A., Moss, S. A., Bradshaw, J. L., & Mattingley, J. B. (2005). Look at me, I'm smiling: Visual search for threatening and nonthreatening facial expressions. Visual Cognition, 12, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13–73). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Asymmetries in visual search: An introduction. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 495–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional capture and attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 676–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yantis, S., & Egeth, H. E. (1999). On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations