Waters, Allison M., Kokkoris, Liza L., Mogg, Karin, Bradley, Brendan P. and Pine, Daniel S.
(2009) The time course of attentional bias for emotional faces in anxious children. Cognition and
Emotion, 12, (6), 737-753.
DOI: 10.1080/02699930903274355
This is an electronic version of an article published in Cognition and Emotion which is available
online at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a916209399.
The time course of attentional bias for emotional faces in anxious
children
Allison M. Waters1, Liza L. Kokkoris1, Karin Mogg2, Brendan P. Bradley2,
& Daniel S. Pine3
1
Griffith University, Australia
University of Southampton, UK
3
National Institute of Mental Health, USA
2
Abstract
The present study investigated the time course of attentional bias for angry and happy faces in 50 primary
school-children (9 to 12 years). That is, the study examined the degree to which an anxiety-related
attentional bias was moderated by the duration of threat exposure. Using a visual-probe task, children were
shown angry and happy faces paired with neutral ones over two exposure durations: 500 and 1250 ms.
Results revealed that higher levels of anxiety were associated with an attentional bias towards angry faces
across the 500 ms and 1250 ms exposure durations. There were no effects of children’s anxiety or stimulus
exposure duration on attentional bias for happy faces. Results are discussed in relation to threat-monitoring
versus vigilance-avoidance patterns of attentional bias, and developmental considerations, including
comparison with findings from studies of anxiety-related attentional biases in adults.
Keywords: Attentional bias, emotional faces, anxiety, children
Anxiety disorders represent one of the
most common forms of childhood
psychopathology (Michael, Zetsche & Margraf,
2007) and pose significant risk for concurrent and
future impairment (Bittner et al., 2007). This
suggests the need to understand mechanisms that
contribute to the development and/or maintenance
of childhood anxiety disorders. Cognitive models
(e.g., Mogg & Bradley, 1998; Williams, Watts,
MacLeod, & Mathews, 1997) emphasize the role
of attentional bias in anxiety. Despite differences
among the models, in general, they suggest that
(a) anxious individuals disproportionately direct
cognitive resources to threat-related stimuli, (b)
such biases typically occur at early attentional
stages of stimulus processing, and (c) initial
orienting of attention to threat may be accompanied by
subsequent attentional avoidance of threat in order to
regulate anxious mood state.
Researchers have commonly used the visualprobe task with emotional words or pictures to examine
attentional biases for threat. In this task, paired stimuli
(e.g., threat-neutral word pair; angry-neutral face pair)
are presented simultaneously on a computer screen. The
stimuli then disappear and are followed by a visualprobe presented in the spatial location of one of the
stimuli to which participants respond. Faster responsetimes (RTs) to probes replacing threat compared with
neutral stimuli reflect an attentional bias toward threat.
Consistent with central tenets of cognitive
theories of anxiety, numerous studies show that,
compared with low anxious adults, anxious adults are
1
faster to respond to probes replacing threatening
compared with neutral words or faces presented
for short exposure durations (e.g., 500 ms),
suggestive of an attentional bias towards threat
(Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, BakermansKranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007). However,
evidence regarding the time-course of the bias is
mixed (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Frewen, Dozois,
Joanisse & Neufeld, 2008). This has been
examined in studies employing exposure
durations varying between 100 and 1500 ms. For
example, in adults with high trait anxiety and
generalized anxiety disorder, the attentional bias
towards threat words and faces did not
significantly vary across these exposure durations
(e.g., 100-1500 ms for threat words; 500-1250 ms
for angry faces), with no evidence of avoidance of
threat at longer durations (e.g., Bradley, Mogg,
Falla, & Hamilton, 1998; Bradley, Mogg, White,
Groom, & de Bono, 1999; Mogg, Bradley, de
Bono, & Painter, 1997). In contrast, in adults with
social phobia, the attentional bias for angry faces
dissipated over time: i.e., they showed initial bias
towards angry faces at 500 ms, but did not differ
from non-anxious individuals at 1250 ms (Mogg,
Philippot & Bradley, 2004). Studies employing
other aversive pictures (e.g., attack, injury) found
initial bias towards threat at short durations (500
ms), followed by subsequent avoidance at longer
durations (1250-1500 ms) in adults with high trait
anxiety (Koster, Verschuere, Crombez, & Van
Damme, 2005) and blood-injury fear (Mogg,
Bradley, Miles, & Dixon , 2004). One recent
meta-analysis, albeit based only on adult studies,
suggested that anxiety is characterized by an
initial threat attentional bias (≤ 500 ms) which
dissipates over time (≥ 1000 ms), such that high
and low anxious adults do not consistently differ
in attentional bias at longer exposures (Frewen et
al., 2008).
A growing literature has emerged on
attentional bias for threat in childhood anxiety
(see Muris & Field, 2008), although results have
been inconsistent. For example, of six published
studies examining attentional biases for angry
faces at 500 ms, four reported a bias towards
threat in childhood anxiety (e.g., Roy et al., 2008;
Telzer et al., 2008; Waters, Mogg, Bradley, &
Pine, 2008; Watts & Weems, 2006), whereas two
unexpectedly revealed attentional avoidance of
threat (e.g., Pine et al., 2005; Monk et al., 2006).
However, these discrepant findings may be due to
specific sample and experimental characteristics of
those studies: maltreated children with post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) may engage in attentional
avoidance of angry faces to avoid soliciting further harm
(Pine et al., 2005); and the clinically anxious
adolescents in Monk et al.’s (2006) study may have
avoided threat due to the stressful nature of being
assessed in an fMRI scanner.
Furthermore, because of children’s relatively
slow processing capabilities, other studies have utilized
longer exposure durations than typically employed in
studies of adults (e.g. 1000-1500 ms). Even with such
relatively long presentations, several of these studies
have found attentional vigilance for threat words in
clinically anxious children (e.g., Dalgleish et al., 2003;
Hunt, Keogh, & French, 2007; Taghavi, Neshat-Doost,
Moradi, Yule, & Dalgleish, 1999; Vasey, Daleiden,
Williams, & Brown, 1995) and test-anxious schoolchildren (Vasey, El-Hag, & Daleiden, 1996). However,
studies using pictorial stimuli at longer exposures show
mixed results e.g., in one study, clinically anxious
children showed greater attentional bias for assorted
threat scenes (at 1250 ms) than non-anxious children
(Waters, Wharton, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Craske, 2008),
whereas both anxious and non-anxious groups showed a
threat bias in another study (Waters, Lipp, & Spence,
2004). Regarding non-clinical anxiety in schoolchildren, one study found that higher social anxiety was
associated with greater attentional avoidance of negative
faces (at 1000 ms) relative to neutral faces (Stirling,
Eley, & Clark, 2006), whereas another found that higher
trait anxiety was associated with greater bias towards
negative faces (schematic faces at 1000 ms; HeimDreger, Kohlmann, Eschenbeck & Burkhardt, 2006).
Thus, findings from studies with longer exposure
durations have similarly been inconsistent and this may
also be related to sample and experimental differences
across studies.
It is therefore difficult to draw firm conclusions
about the time course of attentional bias in anxious
children when there has been wide variation not only in
the exposure durations utilized but also in the nature of
the samples studied (e.g. clinical status, type of anxiety,
age), the stimuli employed, and the experimental
context. A study is needed that directly investigates the
time course of the anxiety-related attentional bias using
both short and long exposure durations within the same
2
sample of children assessed in the same testing
environment, using the same stimuli.
In the present study, we assessed
attentional biases for angry and happy faces at
both 500 and 1250 ms in children. The 500 ms
exposure duration has been used widely in adult
work (Bar-Haim et al., 2007) and, to a lesser
extent, in child studies that have found both
attention biases towards (Roy et al., 2008; Telzer
et al., 2008; Waters, Mogg et al., 2008; Watts &
Weems, 2006) and away (Monk et al., 2006; Pine
et al., 2005) from angry faces. We also assessed
attentional biases later in the time course with a
1250 ms exposure duration, because it allows
direct comparison with both adult research (e.g.,
1250 ms: Bradley et al., 1998; Koster et al., 2005;
Mogg, Philippot et al., 2004) and child studies
using similar durations (e.g.,1250 ms: Vasey et
al., 1995, 1996; Waters et al., 2004; Waters,
Wharton et al., 2008; 1000 ms: Heim-Dreger et
al., 2006; Stirling et al., 2006; 1500 ms: Dalgleish
et al., 2003).We sought to clarify whether nonclinical anxiety in children is associated with
maintained attention to threat faces (Heim-Dreger
et al., 2006) or subsequent attentional avoidance
(Stirling et al., 2006). It was not feasible to assess
more than two stimulus durations, because this
would have made the task unacceptably long for
young children.
Based on previous theoretical and
empirical work (e.g., Bar-Haim et al., 2007;
Frewen et al., 2008), our primary hypothesis was
that, in a normal sample of school-children,
higher levels of anxiety would be associated with
a greater attentional bias towards angry faces
relative to neutral faces. Furthermore, if the bias
is similar to that found in adults, children with
high-normal levels of anxiety should show an
attentional bias towards angry, relative to neutral,
faces; whereas those with low-normal levels of
anxiety should show no attentional bias (cf.,
Bradley et al., 1998; Bar-Haim et al., 2007).
Regarding the time course of the bias, several
different outcomes are possible. According to a
recent meta-analysis and connectionist model
(Frewen et al., 2008), the anxiety-related
attentional bias should dissipate across the two
exposure conditions: 500-1250 ms. However,
according to another meta-analysis (Bar-Haim et
al., 2007) and subsequent research in children
(Heim-Dreger et al., 2006), the attentional bias should
not vary across these exposure conditions in anxious
individuals. Another possibility is that the anxietyrelated bias may switch from an initial bias towards
angry faces at 500 ms (Telzer et al., 2008) to attentional
avoidance at the longer exposure duration (Stirling et
al., 2006). Predictions about the time course are made
with caution, given limited and mixed evidence [e.g.,
there were no child studies in Frewen et al.’s (2008)
meta-analysis, and only two child studies used pictorial
stimuli in Bar-Haim et al.’s (2007, p. 15) meta-analysis].
A secondary aim was to assess the time course
of attentional bias for happy faces. Previous research
suggests that low anxious individuals have a greater
attentional bias for positive stimuli than high anxious
individuals (Frewen et al., 2008). These authors suggest
that this positive bias may be acquired as a result of low
anxious individuals having greater exposure to positive
stimuli during early development. However, there is
inconsistent evidence of attentional biases for positive
stimuli in low and high anxious children (e.g., Roy et
al., 2008; Waters, Mogg et al., 2008; Waters et al.,
2004) and the time course of the bias for happy faces
has never been assessed in prior studies. Based on
Frewen et al. (2008), we predicted a greater attentional
bias for happy faces in low than high anxious children
and did not expect this bias to vary across the two
exposure durations.
Method
Participants
Participants were 50 children recruited from a
local primary school (22 males; 28 females), aged 9.0 to
12.1 years (M = 10.8, SD = 1.1). None had participated
in prior research. Ninety-six percent were born in
Australia, 2% in the UK and 2% in Chile. For 76% of
children, marital status of parents was reported as
married, 6% divorced, 6% separated, 8% de facto and
4% single-never married. Eighty-two percent of
participants lived with both parents while the remaining
18% lived with their mother only. Parents’ occupational
status was assessed using the Daniel Prestige Scale
(Daniel, 1983), a measure of Australian occupational
prestige (0 = high to 7 = low), which indicated that
children came from average-income Australian families
(i.e., M = 4.12 (SD = 1.08) and M = 4.03 (SD = 1.11) for
mothers’ and fathers’ occupations respectively). Ethical
approval for this study was obtained from Griffith
University’s Human Research Ethics Committee, the
Education Department’s research review committee, and
3
the Principal of the participating school.
Participants did not receive compensation for
participating.
Materials and apparatus
Anxiety. The parent- and child-report
formats of the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale
(SCAS-P, SCAS-C) (Spence, 1998) were utilised
to assess anxiety severity. The SCAS-P, a 39 item
parent report measure, and the SCAS-C, a 45item child self-report measure, yield total and
subscale scores in accordance with the DSM-IV
anxiety diagnoses and possess sound
psychometric properties (Nauta et al., 2004;
Spence, 1998).
The State Scale of the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory for Children (STAIC; Spielberger,
1973) was completed by children to measure state
anxiety at the time of testing. The State Scale
consists of 20 self-report items to yield a total
score and is psychometrically sound (Muris,
Merckelbach, Ollendick, King, & Bogie, 2002;
Spielberger, 1973).
Depression. The Children’s Depression
Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992) was used to assess
children’s self-reported depressive symptoms.
This measure contains 27-items that yield a total
score. Acceptable psychometric properties have
been reported (Kovacs, 1992).
Attentional bias. The visual-probe task
and stimuli were similar to those used in prior
studies of children using a 500 ms exposure
duration (e.g., Monk et al., 2006; Pine et al.,
2005; Roy et al., 2008; Telzer et al., 2008;
Waters, Mogg et al., 2008;), and adults using both
500 and 1250 ms durations (e.g. Bradley et al.,
1998, 1999; Mogg, Philippot et al., 2004). The
task was programmed using E-prime 1.1
(Psychology Software Tools, Inc) and presented
on a Dell Optiplex computer with a 17-inch, 75Hz CRT colour monitor. Stimuli were
photographs of 64 adult actors (half male, half
female) of Caucasian appearance, each presenting
a neutral and either an angry, or happy expression
resulting in 32 angry-neutral and 32 happy-neutral
face pairs (see Bradley et al., 1998, for details).
There were also 16 neutral-neutral face pairs
which were used as filler trials. Each face pair
was presented twice (once at each duration: 500
and 1250 ms) and the distance between the inner
edges of the pictures was 9 cm when presented.
Procedure
After all required approvals for the study were
obtained, children in grades 5-7 (i.e., aged 8 to 12 years)
at the local primary school were visited and the study
was explained to them. The information sheet, consent
form, family demographic form, and SCAS-P were sent
home with each child. A box was placed in each
classroom so that children could return completed forms
in envelopes provided. Only children with written
parental consent participated. The age range of these
children was 9 to 12 years. Testing took place during
school time in a quiet room on school grounds.
Participating children were collected and returned to
their classrooms by the research assistant and were
supervised at all times.
Children first completed the visual-probe task
followed by the questionnaires to avoid sensitisation.
All items were read aloud by the research assistant to
avoid variation in children’s reading ability affecting
results. The sessions lasted approximately 45 minutes.
For the visual-probe task, children sat
approximately 60 cm in front of the computer and first
completed 10 practice trials followed by 160 trials
presented in random order. Each trial began with a
fixation cross for 500 ms followed by two faces, one on
the left and one on the right side of the screen, for either
500 or 1250 ms. One face was replaced by an asterisk
probe for 1100 ms, balanced across trials and
conditions. Participants identified the probe location
(left or right) by pressing one of two keyboard keys.
Critical trials presented an emotional expression (angry
or happy) paired with a neutral expression from the
same person. The asterisk probe replaced the emotional
face on half the trials and the neutral face on other trials.
Statistical analysis
Attentional bias scores were derived from the
RT data and used as the dependent variable in analyses.
RTs from error trials (< 5% of trials) and outliers (< 200
ms, or > 3 SDs above each participant’s mean; < 1%
trials) were removed from analyses. Overall mean RT
was 562 ms.
Attentional bias scores were calculated for each
emotional face by computing the difference between
mean RTs for incongruent trials (i.e., emotional face and
probe appear at opposite locations) and congruent trials
(i.e., emotional face and probe appear at the same
location). Positive values indicate a bias towards, and
negative values indicate a bias away, from the emotional
face.
4
To test our main hypotheses for angry
and happy faces, separate linear mixed models
with Satterthwaite’s Approximation for degrees
of freedom were computed with Exposure
Duration (500 ms; 1250 ms) as the fixed effect
and SCAS-P total scores treated as a continuous
variable. The SCAS-P was used in the analyses to
be consistent with our prior work (i.e., Waters,
Mogg et al., 2008).
Results
Group Characteristics
Means and SDs for questionnaire
measures are given in Table 1. Total scores on the
SCAS-P ranged from 4 to 51 and from 6 to 80 on
the SCAS-C, reflecting wide variation in
children’s anxiety levels. Scores also ranged from
20 to 49 on the STAIC-State Scale and from 35 to
67 on the CDI. Also, SCAS-P total scores
correlated significantly with SCAS-C total scores
(r = .40, p = .004) and STAIC scores (r = .32, p =
.02) but not CDI t-scores (r = .17, p = .22).
Attentional bias
Angry faces. Table 1 shows the mean
attentional bias scores for angry faces for the
whole sample and those scoring above and below
the median on the SCAS-P. Higher levels of
anxiety were associated with larger attentional
bias towards angry faces; i.e. significant main
effect of Anxiety, F(1,48) = 8.26, p = .006, β =
.81, p<.01, which supports our primary
hypothesis. The main effect of Exposure Duration
and the interaction between Anxiety x Exposure
Duration were not significant, F < 1; i.e., the
anxiety-related attentional bias for threat did not
significantly vary across the two exposure
conditions. Threat attentional bias scores for the
whole sample (averaged across durations) were
positively correlated with SCAS-P total scores (r
= .30, p = .03), but not significantly with
children’s age, CDI, SCAS-C or STAIC scores
(r’s = -.16 to .1).
To allow direct comparison with studies
of adults with non-clinical anxiety (e.g. Bradley et
al., 1998) and to facilitate meta-analyses (e.g.
calculation of effect sizes in each condition),
Table 1 includes means and SDs for attentional
bias scores for children with above- and belowmedian SCAS-P scores. In support of our
prediction, children with high-normal levels of
anxiety showed a significant attentional bias for
angry, relative to neutral, faces (one sample t-test of
overall threat bias score vs. zero: t(24) = 3.43, p = 002),
whereas children with low-normal levels of anxiety
showed no bias (one sample t(24) = .99, p = .33).
Happy faces. The analyses of attentional bias
scores for happy faces, as a function of exposure
duration and SCAS-P total scores, revealed no
significant effects; all F’s < 1.16.
Discussion
The present study showed that higher levels of
childhood anxiety were associated with an attentional
bias towards angry faces. Moreover, the anxiety-related
attentional bias towards angry faces did not significantly
vary across the 500 and 1250 ms exposure durations.
There were no effects of anxiety or exposure duration on
attentional bias for happy faces.
The finding that greater levels of anxiety were
associated with an attentional bias towards angry faces
is consistent with cognitive models (e.g., Mogg &
Bradley, 1998; Muris & Field, 2008; Williams et al.,
1997) and several child and adult studies (e.g., Bradley
et al., 1998; 1999; Roy et al., 2008; Telzer et al., 2008;
Waters, Mogg et al., 2008). The finding that an
attentional bias towards angry faces was maintained
across both stimulus durations (500 and 1250 ms) in
children with higher levels of anxiety is very similar to
the pattern of bias found in adults with non-clinical
anxiety (Bradley et al., 1998): i.e., significant bias for
angry faces in individuals with high-normal levels of
anxiety, and no bias in those with low-normal anxiety.
The present results contrast with three previous
findings of attentional avoidance of angry faces in
anxious children (Monk et al., 2006; Pine et al., 2005;
Stirling et al., 2006). This is consistent with the
contention that avoidance of threat at short exposure
durations in clinical anxiety (i.e., Monk et al., 2006;
Pine et al., 2005) may reflect specific diagnostic and
experimental characteristics of those studies (Roy et al.,
2008). The present findings also contrast with one prior
non-clinical study that found avoidance of negative
faces at a longer duration (Stirling et al., 2006). One
explanation for the latter finding is that avoidance of
angry faces in non-clinical children is characteristic of
specific fear states, such as social fear (e.g., Stirling et
al., 2006), rather than trait/general anxiety as assessed in
the present study. Thus, prolonged threat-monitoring
may be more characteristic of high trait or generalized
childhood anxiety, (e.g. the present study; Dalgleish et
al., 2003; Taghavi et al., 1999).
5
These findings raise the question of what
underlying mechanism/s might explain prolonged
attention to threat in some anxious children.
Consistent with cognitive theories (e.g., Mogg &
Bradley, 1998), one possibility is that anxious
children appraise angry faces as more threatening
compared to controls, and this appraisal
difference promotes greater attention to threat.
Future studies should assess children’s subjective
appraisals of facial stimuli to address this issue.
Another possibility is that ongoing monitoring of
threats reflects a “better safe than sorry” approach
for regulating elevated anxious arousal. Notably,
children’s state anxiety scores correlated
significantly with SCAS-P scores, meaning that
children identified by parents as being anxious
were themselves the most anxious at the time of
testing.
Another mechanism that may influence
attentional bias is attention control. Recent studies
indicate that a threat attentional bias is more
evident in anxious children (Lonigan & Vasey,
2009) and adults (Derryberry & Reed, 2002) who
have poor cognitive control, as they may be less
able to shift attention away from threat once
drawn to its spatial location. It is possible
therefore that the more anxious children in the
present sample also had lower levels of cognitive
control. It will be important in future work to
include measures of attentional/effortful control.
Although the present study cannot
elucidate the precise underlying mechanisms,
prolonged attention to threat in anxious children
may have important clinical implications for
maintaining and possibly enhancing anxiety over
time. For example, treatments for childhood
anxiety may need to incorporate attention
regulation training (Bögels & Mansell, 2004).
This was recently highlighted by Waters,
Wharton et al. (2008) who showed that after
cognitive behavioural therapy that included
psychoeducation, somatic management, cognitive
restructuring and exposure therapy, anxious
children continued to show a threat attentional
bias compared to non-anxious control children.
There were limitations to the present
study. Children were drawn from the normal
population and future studies should examine
whether the results generalize to clinically
anxious children. Another consideration is the
choice of stimulus durations. This and previous
investigations with children have typically applied
exposure durations up to 1500 ms, so there is a need to
explore attentional biases at longer durations (e.g., to
further investigate avoidance). Also, the visual-probe
task relies on manual RT to index attention and only
provides snap-shot measures of attentional bias at a
limited number of exposure durations. Eye tracking
would help address whether anxious children remain
fixed on threat stimuli, shift attention back and forth
from threat in an unstable manner (e.g., Garner, Mogg,
& Bradley, 2006), or even show anxiety-related
attentional avoidance with much longer exposure
durations (Frewen et al., 2008). Finally, the format of
the visual-probe task used a probe-position (‘where is
the probe?’) rather than probe-classification (‘what is
the probe?’) or probe-detection response (‘is there a
probe?’). Each version has advantages and
disadvantages (see Mogg & Bradley, 1999); e.g. the
probe-position task is simple and commonly used with
children; the probe-classification task may encourage
more even monitoring of both sides of the display, but
produces more errors and RT variance. Comparison of
data from these tasks showed similar patterns of bias in
monitoring strategy and similar sensitivity to attentional
bias (Mogg & Bradley, 1999). Thus, we used the probeposition task here because the participants were young
children. Future research should consider the relative
merits of each task, depending on specific study
requirements.
In summary, the present study indicates an
attentional bias towards angry faces in anxious schoolchildren, which did not vary significantly across the 500
and 1250 ms exposure durations, consistent with
attention being held on threat under these conditions.
Further research using longer stimulus durations with
clinical and non-clinical samples is needed to further
assess attentional bias in childhood anxiety, as research
with adults suggests that attentional avoidance of threat
may become apparent at longer stimulus durations
(Frewen et al., 2008). Moreover, longitudinal research is
required to examine the contributory role of attention
processes to the onset of anxiety at different stages of
development.
Acknowledgements:
This research was supported by a Griffith University
New Researcher Grant awarded to Dr Allison Waters.
Thanks are due to Harvey Iwamoto for assistance with
programming the task.
6
References
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L.,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van
IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related
attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious
individuals: a meta-analytic study.
Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1-24.
Bittner, A., Egger, H. L., Erkanli, A., Costello, J.,
Foley, D. L., & Angold, A. (2007). What do
childhood anxiety disorders predict? Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 11741183.
Bögels, S. M., & Mansell, W. (2004). Attention
processes in the maintenance and
treatment
of social phobia: Hypervigilance, avoidance and
self-focused attention. Clinicial Psychology
Review, 24, 827-856.
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., Falla, S. J., &
Hamilton, L. R. (1998). Attentional bias for
threatening facial expressions in anxiety:
Manipulation of stimulus duration. Cognition
and Emotion, 12(6), 737-753.
Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., White, J., Groom, C., &
de Bono, J. (1999). Attentional bias for
emotional faces in generalised anxiety disorder.
British Journal for Clinical Psychology, 38,
267-278.
Dalgliesh, T., Taghavi, R., Neshat-Doost, H. T.,
Moradi, A., Canterbury, R., & Yule, W.
(2003). Patterns of processing bias for
emotional information across clinical disorders:
A comparison of attention, memory, and
prospective cognition in children and
adolescents with depression, generalized
anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorders.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 32, 10-21.
Daniel, A. E. (1983). Power, Privilege, and
Prestige. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002). Anxietyrelated attention biases and their regulation by
attention control. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 111(2), 225-236.
Frewen, P. A., Dozois, D. J. A., Joanisse, M. F.,
& Neufeld, R.W. J. (2008). Selective attention
to threat versus reward: Meta-analysis and
neural-network modeling of the dot-probe task.
Clinical Psychology Review. 28(2), 307-337.
Garner, M., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2006).
Orienting and maintenance of gaze to facial
expressions in social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 115(4), 760-770.
Heim-Dreger, U., Kohlmann, C-W., Eschenbeck, H., &
Burkhardt, U. (2006). Attentional biases for
threatening faces in children: Vigilant and avoidant
processes. Emotion, 6(2), 320-325.
Hunt, C., Keogh, E., & French, C. C. (2007). Anxiety
sensitivity, conscious awareness and selective
attention biases in children. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 45(3), 497-509.
Koster, E. H. W., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., Van
Damme, S. (2005). Time course of attention for
threatening pictures in high and low trait anxiety.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1087-1093.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children's depression inventory.
New York: Multi-Health Systems.
Lonigan, C. J., & Vasey, M. W. (2009). Negative
affectivity, effortful control, and attention to threatrelevant stimuli. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 37, 387-399.
Michael, T., Zetsche, U. & Margraf, J. (2007).
Epidemiology of anxiety disorders. Psychiatry, 6(4),
136-142.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1998). A cognitivemotivational analysis of anxiety.
Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 36, 809-848.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1999). Some
methodological issues in assessing attentional biases
for threatening faces in anxiety: A replication study
using a modified version of the probe detection task.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 595-604.
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., De Bono, J., Painter, M.
(1997). Time course of attentional bias for threat
information in non-clinical anxiety. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 35(4), 297-303.
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Miles, F., & Dixon, R. (2004).
Time course of attentional bias for threat scenes:
Testing the vigilance-avoidance hypothesis. Cognition
and Emotion, 18(5), 689-700.
Mogg, K., Philippot, P., Bradley, B. P. (2004). Selective
attention to angry faces in clinical social phobia.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 160-165.
Monk, C. S., Nelson, E. E., McClure, E. B., Mogg, K.,
Bradley, B. P., Leibenluft, E., et al. (2006).
Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex activation and attention
bias in response to angry faces in adolescents with
generalized anxiety disorder. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 163(6), 1091-1097.
7
Muris, P., & Field, A. P. (2008). Distorted
cognition and pathological anxiety in children
and adolescents. Cognition and Emotion, 22(3),
395-421.
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Ollendick, T., King,
N., & Bogie, N. (2002). Three traditional and
three new childhood anxiety questionnaires:
their reliability and validity in a normal
adolescent sample. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 40(7), 753-772.
Nauta, M. H., Scholing, A., Rapee, R., Abbott,
M., Spence, S. H., & Waters, A. M. (2004). A
parent-report measure of children's anxiety:
Psychometric properties and comparison with
child-report in a clinical and normal sample.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 413-439.
Pine, D. S., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P.,
Montgomery, L., Monk, C. S., McClure, E., et
al. (2005). Attention bias to threat in maltreated
children: Implications for vulnerability to
stress-related psychopathology. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 291-296.
Roy, A. D., Vasa, R. A., Bruck, M., Mogg, D.,
Bradley, B. P., Sweeney, M., Bergman, L.,
McClure-Tone, E. B., Pine, D. S., M. D., & The
Cams Team (2008). Attention bias toward
threat in pediatric anxiety disorders. Child
Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(10), 1-8.
Spence, S. H. (1998). A measure of anxiety
symptoms among children. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 36, 545-566.
Spielberger, C. D. (1973). State-trait anxiety
inventory for children. Redwood City, CA:
Mind Garden.
Stirling, L. J., Eley, T. C., & Clark, D. M. (2006).
Preliminary evidence for an association
between social anxiety symptoms and
avoidance of negative faces in school-age
children. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 35(3), 440-445.
Taghavi, M. R., Neshat Doost, H. T., Moradi, A.,
Yule, W., & Dalgliesh, T. (1999). Biases in
visual attention in children and adolescents with
clinical anxiety and mixed anxiety-depression.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 215-223.
Telzer, E. H., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Mai, X., Ernst,
M., Pine, D. S. & Monk, C. S. (2008). Relationship
between trait anxiety, prefrontal cortex, and attention
bias to angry faces in children and adolescents.
Biological Psychology, 79(2), 216-222.
Vasey, M. W., Daleiden, E. L., Williams, L. L., &
Brown, L. M. (1995). Biased attention in childhood
anxiety disorders: A preliminary study. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 23(2), 267-279.
Vasey, M. W., El-Hag, N., & Daleiden, E. L. (1996).
Anxiety and the processing of emotionally threatening
stimuli: Distinctive patterns of selective attention
among high- and low-test-anxious children. Child
Development, 67, 1173-1185.
Waters, A. M., Lipp, O. V., & Spence, S. H. (2004).
Attentional bias toward fear-related stimuli: An
investigation with nonselected children and adults and
children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
89, 320-337.
Waters, A. M., Mogg, K., Bradley, P. B., & Pine, D. S.
(2008). Attentional bias for emotional faces in
children with generalized anxiety disorders. Journal of
American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 47(4), 435-441.
Waters, A. M., Wharton, T. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M.
J., & Craske, M. G. (2008). Threat-based cognitive
biases in anxious children: Comparison with nonanxious children before and after cognitive behaviour
treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(3),
358-406.
Watts, S. E., & Weems, C. F. (2006). Associations
among selective attention, memory bias, cognitive
errors, and symptoms of anxiety in youth. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 841-852.
Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., &
Mathews, A. (1997). Cognitive
psychology and
emotional disorders (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
8
Table 1:
Descriptive statistics for questionnaires and attentional bias scores
______________________________________________________________________________
Measure
Overall
(N=50)
Above-median anxiety Below-median anxiety
(N=25)
(N=25)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
______________________________________________________________________________
SCAS-P
24.0
13.5
35.6
8.3
12.3
4.2
SCAS-C
32.3
15.5
37.2
17.6
27.4
11.3
STAI-S
34.7
7.3
37.2
6.7
32.3
7.2
CDI
46.0
7.4
46.8
8.5
45.2
6.2
500 ms
12.9
39.9
20.1
46.4
5.7
31.5
1250 ms
10.7
30.8
18.4
27.9
2.9
32.2
Overall
11.7
35.4
19.2
28.0
4.3
21.7
500 ms
-5.7
40.6
-11.9 39.8
0.5
41.2
1250 ms
2.0
41.0
4.2
36.3
-0.1
45.8
Overall
-1.8
40.8
-3.9
28.1
0.2
26.7
Angry bias:
Happy bias:
_______________________________________________________________________________
2