Cited by 192Face Recognition and PerceptionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Anxiety and orienting of gaze to angry and fearful faces

Open access
Mogg, Karin, Garner, Matthew, Bradley, Brendan P.·2007·Biological Psychology

Abstract

Neuroscience research indicates that individual differences in anxiety may be attributable to a neural system for threat-processing, involving the amygdala, which modulates attentional vigilance, and which is more sensitive to fearful than angry faces. Complementary cognitive studies indicate that high-anxious individuals show enhanced visuospatial orienting towards angry faces, but it is unclear whether fearful faces elicit a similar attentional bias. This study compared biases in initial orienting of gaze to fearful and angry faces, which varied in emotional intensity, in high- and low-anxious individuals. Gaze was monitored whilst participants viewed a series of face-pairs. Results showed that fearful and angry faces elicited similar attentional biases. High-anxious individuals were more likely to direct gaze at intense negative facial expressions, than low-anxious individuals, whereas the groups did not differ in orienting to mild negative expressions. Implications of the findings for research into the neural and cognitive bases of emotion processing are discussed.

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 · 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.07.005

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mogg, K., Garner, M., & Bradley, B. P.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Mogg, Karin
Venue
Biological Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
163-169
ISSN
0301-0511 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040924069
Cited by
192
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (51076)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
anxiety, threat processing, amygdala, attentional bias, fearful faces, angry faces, facial expressions, emotional intensity, individual differences, attentional vigilance
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anger, Anxiety, Attention, Facial Expression, Fear, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time

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