攻击性信息对脆弱型高自尊大学生返回抑制的影响机制

The Effect of Aggressive Information on the Inhibition of Return in College Students with Fragile High Self-Esteem

为考察攻击性信息对脆弱型高自尊大学生返回抑制的影响机制,本研究采用线索靶子范式,分别将攻击性及中性词汇作为靶子(实验1)和线索(实验2)呈现。实验1发现,脆弱型和安全型高自尊组对攻击性信息均存在注意捕获,从而使攻击性信息的返回抑制量降低。实验2发现,脆弱型高自尊组对攻击性信息存在注意解除困难,从而使攻击性信息的返回抑制量降低。脆弱型高自尊大学生对攻击性信息存在过多的注意维持,降低了视觉搜索效率,这可是其好发攻击性行为的潜在认知加工机制。

The purpose in this study was to explore whether aggressive information could interact with attention by reducing the extent of inhibition of return(IOR) effect and whether the discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem(SE) could modulate IOR effect under attentional biases toward aggressive information. A standard cue-target task was adopted to examine whether the attentional bias was stemmed from attention capture or attentional disengagement. Participants were asked to respond to Rosenberg’s(1965) 10-item Self-Esteem Scale and the implicit association task(IAT). According to the results of the tests, the fragile HSE group(a combination of high explicit and low implicit SE) and secure HSE group(a combination of high explicit and high implicit SE) were selected. The Cue-target task was applied in two experiments to measure IOR. Two types of words were served as target in Experiment 1 but as cue in Experiment 2. Participants were asked to respond to the location of the target(the word in Experiment 1 and a black asterisk in Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, mean RTs were subjected to a 2(group: fragile HSE vs. secure HSE) ×2 SOA:500 vs 1000 ms)×2(Target Valence: aggressive vs. neutral) ×2 and(Cueing validity: valid vs. invalid)mixed-facrors ANOVA. There was a significant main effect on target valence[F(1, 66)=5.11,p=.027, η2=.072], the RTs for aggressive words were significantly faster than that for neutral words(319.48±7.05 ms).And the main effect of cueing validity was significant [F(1, 66)=34.85, p<.001, η2=.346], slower RTs on valid than on invalid trials showing a significant IOR effect emerged. Importantly, the interaction between target valence and cueing validity reached significance [F(1,66)=11.94,p=.001, η2=.153], which was not modified by the discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Further analysis indicated that for both groups, the RTs for aggressive targets on valid location was significantly faster than that for neutral targets on valid location, which might reflect facilitated engagement towards aggressive information in the source of attentional capture. On the results of the amounts of IOR showed that there was a significant main effect for target valence[F(1, 66)=11.94, p=.001, η2=.153], smaller IOR extent on aggressive words than that on neutral words. The results of Experiment 1 suggested that the reduction of IOR effect with aggressive targets reflect facilitate engagement towards aggressive information for both groups on the role of attentional capture. In Experiment 2, mean RTs were subjected to a 2(group: fragile HSE vs. secure HSE) ×2 SOA:500 vs. 1000 ms)×2(Target Valence: aggressive vs. neutral) ×2(Cueing validity:valid vs. invalid) mixed-factors ANOVA. There was a significant main effect of cueing validity, [F(1, 64)=114.57, p<.001, η2=.642], the RTs to valid cueing condition(311.71±4.06 ms) was significantly sliwer than invalid cueing, indicating a significant IOR effect. Importantly, there was a significant three-way interaction of cue valence×cueing×group (F(1, 64)=8.29, p=.005, η2=.115)Further analysis showed that the RT for aggressive words on invalid cueing condition was significantly slower than that for neutral words on invalid cueing condition in fragile HSE group;the RT for aggressive words on invalid cueing condition was significantly shorter than that for neutral words on invalid cueing in secure HSE group. It showed that attentional bias in fragile HSE might reflect the difficulty in disengaging from aggressive information. As for the tests on the amounts of IOR, there was a significant interaction between group and cue valence[F(1, 64)=8.29, p=.005, η2=.115].Further analysis showed that, compared to secure HSE group, the effect of IOR on aggressive words in fragile HSE groupwas much smaller;for fragile HSE group, the effect of IOR on aggressive words was smaller than that on neutral words. The results of Experiment 2 suggested that reduction of the IOR effect with aggressive cues reflect the reluctance of fragile HSE group to disengage attention from aggressive information.The findings in this study discussed about the mechanisms responsible for IOR. The attentional biases in fragile HSE were the cause of facilitated engagement towards aggressive information(attentional capture) and the difficulty in disengaging attention from aggressive information. The sensitivity on aggressive stimuli was probably the potential mechanism on aggressive behavior. Further studies should focus on the aggression intervention from a cognitive perspective.