The Interplay of Attachment and Attention Processing of Emotional Faces: The Influence of Exposure Time

Individuals with attachment anxiety or avoidance respectively display vigilance or avoidance response once detecting a threat. Inconsistent findings in existing studies may result from variation in the durations of emotion presentation. The present study was thus designed to investigate whether the influence of attachment on attentional bias toward emotional faces may vary over time. All participants (N = 290) were assessed their attachment tendencies and examined attentional biases toward emotional faces at durations of 200 ms and 2,000 ms. A trial-level bias score (TL-BS) was computed to capture dynamics of biased attention. Results show that attachment avoidance tended to be associated with higher attentional avoidance from happy faces at the duration of 2,000 ms, while no correlation between attachment anxiety and attention bias toward emotional faces was found. This finding may shed light on potential usage of the defensive processing of happy emotion at a later stage of emotional information processing in individuals with inclination of attachment avoidance.

關鍵字

attachment ； attentional bias ； defensive response ； time-course pattern

並列摘要

個體的依戀特性影響其偵測威脅刺激後之反應差異，依理論推論，焦慮依戀個體會表現出警覺反應，而逃避依戀個體則會表現出逃避反應，但上述形態在過去實徵研究並未得到一致結果，推想可能是因為刺激呈現時間的差異所導致的。因此，本研究欲探討依戀特性對於情緒臉孔之注意力處理歷程的影響，是否會隨著情緒臉孔呈現時間的變化而有不同。本研究共招募290名的研究參與者，所有研究參與者依序完成評估依戀特性的自陳式量表，以及測量注意力偏誤的電腦化作業，其中，在注意力作業中，情緒臉孔呈現時間分別為200與2,000毫秒，並計算敏感於時間歷程變化的注意力偏誤分數。結果發現，逃避依戀與呈現2,000毫秒快樂臉孔的注意力逃避分數有正相關的傾向，而焦慮依戀則與注意力偏誤分數無相關。此研究結果顯示，逃避依戀個體在注意力的後期處理歷程對快樂臉孔出現逃避反應，呈現防衛策略的傾向。本論文將對此防衛策略提出進一步探討。

並列關鍵字

依戀；注意力偏誤；防衛反應；時間歷程模式

參考文獻

黃玉蓮、陳淑惠（2011）：〈成人依戀量表台灣修訂版的心理計量特性與預測心理適應之探討〉。《中華心理學刊》，53(2)，209-227 。[Huang, Y.-L., & Chen, S.-H. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of revised adult attachment scale and its prediction to psychological adjustment. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 209-227.] https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.2011.5302.05

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61(2), 226-244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Carlson, J. M., & Fang, L. (2020). The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot-probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bias scores and trial-level bias scores. Motivation and Emotion, 44, 657-669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09834-6

Chun, D. S., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., Mathews, A., & Jorgensen, T. D. (2015). Testing a dual-process model of avoidant defenses. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.02.002

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810-832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810

國際替代計量

The Interplay of Attachment and Attention Processing of Emotional Faces: The Influence of Exposure Time

全文下載

主題瀏覽