BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although there is some evidence that health anxiety is associated with attentional bias, relatively little research has examined the role of situational threat on bias. This study examined the effect of health threat on attentional bias for negative health words. METHODS: Participants completed questionnaires and were then randomized to receive either threatening or reassuring health-related feedback. Following randomization, participants completed the emotional Stroop and dot-probe tasks in a counter-balanced order. RESULTS: On the emotional Stroop task, all participants took longer to name the colour of negative words, as compared to positive and neutral words. However on the dot probe task, differences in attentional bias emerged based on feedback condition. Those receiving reassuring feedback displayed a bias away from negative words while those receiving threatening feedback did not display a bias either towards or away from negative words. Following reassuring feedback only, metacognitions were negatively correlated with attention towards positive health-related stimuli, suggesting another avenue for future research. CONCLUSIONS: Health threats lead to an increase in the processing of negative information, and the effect of metacognitions on processing appears to be apparent only in the absence of health threat.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although there is some evidence that health anxiety is associated with attentional bias, relatively little research has examined the role of situational threat on bias. This study examined the effect of health threat on attentional bias for negative health words. METHODS:Participants completed questionnaires and were then randomized to receive either threatening or reassuring health-related feedback. Following randomization, participants completed the emotional Stroop and dot-probe tasks in a counter-balanced order. RESULTS: On the emotional Stroop task, all participants took longer to name the colour of negative words, as compared to positive and neutral words. However on the dot probe task, differences in attentional bias emerged based on feedback condition. Those receiving reassuring feedback displayed a bias away from negative words while those receiving threatening feedback did not display a bias either towards or away from negative words. Following reassuring feedback only, metacognitions were negatively correlated with attention towards positive health-related stimuli, suggesting another avenue for future research. CONCLUSIONS: Health threats lead to an increase in the processing of negative information, and the effect of metacognitions on processing appears to be apparent only in the absence of health threat.