Cited by 126Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Threat bias in attention orienting: Evidence of specificity in a large community-based study

Salum, G. A., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Gadelha, A., Pan, P., Tamanaha, A. C., Moriyama, T., Graeff-Martins, A. S. +7 more·2013·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preliminary research implicates threat-related attention biases in paediatric anxiety disorders. However, major questions exist concerning diagnostic specificity, effects of symptom-severity levels, and threat-stimulus exposure durations in attention paradigms. This study examines these issues in a large, community school-based sample. Method A total of 2046 children (ages 6-12 years) were assessed using the Development and Well Being Assessment (DAWBA), Childhood Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and dot-probe tasks. Children were classified based on presence or absence of 'fear-related' disorders, 'distress-related' disorders, and behavioural disorders. Two dot-probe tasks, which differed in stimulus exposure, assessed attention biases for happy-face and threat-face cues. The main analysis included 1774 children. RESULTS: For attention bias scores, a three-way interaction emerged among face-cue emotional valence, diagnostic group, and internalizing symptom severity (F = 2.87, p < 0.05). This interaction reflected different associations between internalizing symptom severity and threat-related attention bias across diagnostic groups. In children with no diagnosis (n = 1411, mean difference = 11.03, s.e. = 3.47, df = 1, p < 0.001) and those with distress-related disorders (n = 66, mean difference = 10.63, s.e. = 5.24, df = 1, p < 0.05), high internalizing symptoms predicted vigilance towards threat. However, in children with fear-related disorders (n = 86, mean difference = -11.90, s.e. = 5.94, df = 1, p < 0.05), high internalizing symptoms predicted an opposite tendency, manifesting as greater bias away from threat. These associations did not emerge in the behaviour-disorder group (n = 211). CONCLUSIONS: The association between internalizing symptoms and biased orienting varies with the nature of developmental psychopathology. Both the form and severity of psychopathology moderates threat-related attention biases in children.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291712001651

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Recent visual-probe-task studies of anxious children suggest that AB towards threat is associated with high internalising symptoms in disorder-free children and in those with distress-related disorders, whereas AB away from threat is found in children who have both high internalising symptoms and fear-related disorders.

    “Recent visual-probe-task studies of anxious children suggest that AB towards threat is associated with high internalising (anxiety and depression) symptoms in disorderfree children and in those with distress-related disorders such as generalised anxiety disorder; whereas AB away from threat (avoidance) is found in children who have both high internalising symptoms and fear-related disorders (Salum”
  • Threat-avoidance is sometimes found in anxiety disorders.

    “and is sometimes found in anxiety disorders (e.g., Eldar et al., 2012;Salum et al., 2013;Waters et al., 2014).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salum, G. A., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Gadelha, A., Pan, P., Tamanaha, A. C., Moriyama, T., Graeff-Martins, A. S., Jarros, R. B., Polanczyk, G., do Rosário, M. C., Leibenluft, E., Rohde, L. A., Manfro, G. G., & Pine, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (BR)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Corresponding author
Salum, G. A.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2012-07-31
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
733-745
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2099034837
Cited by
126
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6
FWCI
17.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UNIFESP Institutional Repository (Universidade Federal de São Paulo) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • EU Aid Volunteers
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Keywords
threat bias, attentional bias, attentional orienting, children, internalizing problems, fear-related disorders, behavioural disorders, dot-probe task, emotional valence, developmental psychopathology, diagnostic specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety Disorders, Attention, Child, Child Behavior, Child Behavior Disorders, Facial Expression, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reaction Time, Severity of Illness Index, Cohort Studies, Linear 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