Cited by 306Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phenomenological Characteristics of Attentional Biases Towards Threat: A Critical Review

Open access
Cisler, Josh M., Bacon, Amy K., Williams, Nathan L.·2009·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Abstract

Although research has consistently revealed the presence of a general attentional bias towards threat, empirical and theoretical ambiguity exists in determining whether attentional biases are comprised of facilitated attention to threat, difficulty in disengagement from threat, or both, as well as whether attentional biases reflect automatic or strategic processes. This paper reviews empirical investigations across 4 common assessment tasks: the Stroop (masked and unmasked), dot probe, visual search, and the Posner tasks. Although the review finds inconsistencies both within and between assessment tasks, the evidence suggests that attentional biases towards threat are comprised of each of the phenomenological characteristics addressed in this paper. Contemporary theoretical models of attentional biases in anxiety are summarized and critically reviewed in light of the current evidence. Suggestions for future research are addressed, including a need to investigate the psychometric properties of the assessment tasks, to utilize consistent theoretically driven operationalizations of attentional biases, and to provide a temporal description of the characteristics of attentional biases towards threat.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-007-9161-y

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 91 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 305

Metadata

Authors
Cisler, J. M., Bacon, A. K., & Williams, N. L.
Affiliations
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
Corresponding author
Cisler, Josh M.
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2007-08-16
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
221-234
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W1980139803
Cited by
306
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2009-09-02)
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH018869)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
anxiety, attentional capture, Stroop task, dot-probe task, visual search, Posner task, anxiety models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review