Cited by 107Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Signals of threat do not capture, but prioritize, attention: A conditioning approach.

Open access
Notebaert, Lies, Crombez, Geert, Van Damme, Stefaan, De Houwer, Jan, Theeuwes, Jan·2011·Emotion

Abstract

Research suggests that threatening information captures attention more rapidly than neutral information. However, in most studies threat stimuli differ perceptually from neutral stimuli and are instrumental to perform the task, leaving the question unanswered whether threat is sufficient to capture attention. In experiment 1, we designed a visual search task with stimuli of equal salience (colored circles) that have the potential to lead to efficient search (10 ms/item). In experiment 2, one of the colors (conditioned stimulus, CS+) was made threatening by means of fear conditioning. Participants responded to a target presented in one of the circles. Overall, the search was faster on congruent trials (where the target was presented in the CS+) than on baseline trials (where the CS + was absent). Furthermore, the search was slower on incongruent trials (where the target was presented in another color than the CS+) than on baseline trials. The search on congruent trials was affected by set size (90 ms/item), but to a lesser extent than on baseline trials (105 ms/item). We conclude that threat prioritizes, but does not capture attention.

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 · 10.1037/a0021286

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • During many, if not all, fear-conditioning experiments, participants were instructed or encouraged to attend the threat-related stimulus either because it was part of the task or because it was part of the pre-experimental conditioning session.

    “Even though these studies demonstrated a strong bias in selecting threat-signaling stimuli, it should be realized that during many, if not all, of these experiments, participants were instructed or encouraged to attend the threat-related stimulus either because it was part of the task (e.g., Koster et al., 2004) or because it was part of the pre-experimental conditioning session (e.g., Mulckhuyse,”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Notebaert, Crombez, van Damme, de Houwer, & Theeuwes, 2011

    The introduction (page unavailable) says that in most earlier visual-search studies, the threatening stimulus was instrumental to the task and participants might intentionally look for it. The Procedure (page unavailable) also describes this paper’s own pre-experimental acquisition phase, in which participants were told to identify the color associated with the aversive stimulus. Neither passage establishes the claim about many, if not all, fear-conditioning experiments or their pre-experimental sessions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention. London, UK: University College London Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Notebaert, L., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., De Houwer, J., & Theeuwes, J.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Emotion
Published
2011
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
81-89
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2125055621
Cited by
107
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ghent University (BOF/GOA2006/001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
threats, attentional capture, fear conditioning, visual search, set size, threat salience, congruency effect
MeSH terms
Aggression, Attention, Conditioning, Psychological, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Perception, Psychological Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reaction Time, Young Adult

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