Cited by 30Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFace Recognition and Perception

Gender moderates valence effects on the late positive potential to emotional distracters

Open access
Syrjänen, Elmeri, Wiens, Stefan·2013·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

Attention is captured more strongly by emotional pictures than by neutral pictures. This allocation of attention to emotional pictures is commonly indexed by the late positive potential (LPP). This event-related potential (ERP) is larger for negative and positive pictures than for neutral pictures. However, findings are mixed in regards to valence effects, that is, whether the LPP is larger for negative pictures than for positive pictures (negativity bias) or vice versa (positivity bias). Additionally, previous ERP studies have not explicitly considered a moderating effect of gender. In the present study, positive, negative, and neutral pictures were shown at fixation but were always task-irrelevant. Results showed that LPP amplitudes for the positive and negative distracters were moderated by gender. Men showed a positivity bias on the LPP (i.e., larger amplitudes for positive pictures than for negative pictures). Women did not show a clear valence bias on the LPP, but they showed a negativity bias on picture ratings. These gender differences for the LPP did not habituate, as they were obtained even for pictures that were repeated 20 times. Because previous studies with other measures suggest a positivity bias for men and a negativity bias for women, the present findings extend these studies suggesting that attention allocation for emotional pictures of different valence is similarly moderated by gender.

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.neulet.2013.07.018

Cites

58 of 58 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?

  • Gender was non-significant for all dependent measures except self-reported valence, F(1, 49) = 6.6, p < .013, ηp2 = .119, with women rating unpleasant pictures as more negative than men.

    “Gender was also analyzed as a covariate and generated non-significant results for all dependent measures except for self-reported valence, F(1, 49) = 6.6, p < .013, ηp 2 = .119, with women rating unpleasant pictures as more negative than men [48].”

    From Self-Reported Trait Mindfulness and Affective Reactivity: A Motivational Approach Using Multiple Psychophysiological Measures (2015) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Arousal and valence ratings section reports that women rated negative pictures as more unpleasant than men did. It does not report the quoted F(1, 49) statistic, and the Data analysis section treats gender as a between-subjects variable, not a covariate. The Late positive potential and Arousal and valence ratings sections also report significant gender-by-emotion interactions, contrary to the claim that all other dependent measures were non-significant. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Syrjänen, E., & Wiens, S.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Wiens, Stefan
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
551
Pages
89-93
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056417333
Cited by
30
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
late positive potential, emotional distracters, valence effects, negativity bias, positivity bias, gender differences, attentional capture, emotional pictures, event-related potentials, habituation
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Emotions, Evoked Potentials, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation

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