CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,051Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection

Open access
Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., Anderson, A. K.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0605198104PMC PMC1765470
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study examined the thesis that positive affect may serve to broaden the scope of attentional filters, reducing their selectivity. The effect of positive mood states was measured in two different cognitive domains: semantic search (remote associates task) and visual selective attention (Eriksen flanker task). In the conceptual domain, positive affect enhanced access to remote associates, suggesting an increase in the scope of semantic access. In the visuospatial domain, positive affect impaired visual selective attention by increasing processing of spatially adjacent flanking distractors, suggesting an increase in the scope of visuospatial attention. During positive states, individual differences in enhanced semantic access were correlated with the degree of impaired visual selective attention. These findings demonstrate that positive states, by loosening the reins on inhibitory control, result in a fundamental change in the breadth of attentional allocation to both external visual and internal conceptual space.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Positive mood broadened attentional selection across semantic and visuospatial domains, increasing remote-associate access while impairing selective visual attention to flanking distractors. Individual differences in these two effects were correlated during positive mood, suggesting a common relaxation of inhibitory control.

Key findings

  • Positive mood increased correct solutions on the remote associates task (RAT): happy mood \(M = 6.08\), \(SD = 3.16\), versus sad mood \(M = 5.17\), \(SD = 3.40\), \(t = 2.16\), \(P = 0.04\), and neutral mood \(M = 4.75\), \(SD = 2.64\), \(t = 2.30\), \(P = 0.031\); sad versus neutral was not reliable (\(P = 0.50\)).
  • Positive mood increased Eriksen flanker interference: mood × compatibility interaction \(F(2,46) = 3.86\), \(P < 0.03\), with greater incompatibility effects under positive mood than neutral (\(F(1,46) = 6.56\), \(P < 0.02\)) and sad mood (\(F(1,46) = 4.90\), \(P < 0.04\)); sad and neutral did not differ (\(F < 1\)).
  • Positive mood maintained flanker interference at far distractor distances: three-way spacing × compatibility × mood interaction \(F(4,92) = 3.43\), \(P < 0.02\). Under neutral mood, far-distance compatibility effect was not significant (\(F(1,92) < 1\)); under positive mood, far incompatible flankers still produced pronounced interference (\(F(1,92) = 31.12\), \(P < 0.0001\)). During positive mood, far incompatible distractors (\(M = 498\) ms) were statistically equivalent to near distractors under neutral (\(M = 491\)) and negative (\(M = 501\)) mood (\(P > 0.3\)).
  • During positive mood, RAT performance correlated with flanker incompatibility slowing (\(r = 0.49\), \(P < 0.02\), after removing 2 response-time outliers >4 SDs); no significant correlations under neutral (\(r = -0.09\)) or negative mood (\(r = 0.10\)).

Methods

  • Within-subject experiment with 24 university students (12 female), tested between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. Mood was induced by happy music (jazzed-up Bach Brandenburg Concerto No. 3), sad music (Prokofiev’s Alexander Nevsky: Russia under the Mongolian Yoke at half speed), or neutral reading about Canada; participants rated valence and arousal on a nine-point scale at four time points.
  • RAT: three lists of 16 moderately difficult word triads from Mednick et al., counterbalanced across mood conditions; participants gave one-word solutions aloud within 30 sec per triad.
  • Flanker task: central target letters flanked by compatible or incompatible letters at near, medium, or far spacing (0, 1, or 2 letter widths); 36 practice trials, then 96 randomly presented trials per block with ISIs of 500, 700, or 800 ms. Analyses used repeated-measures ANOVA on correct trials only; RTs >1,000 ms were treated as incorrect and excluded; accuracy was 93.6%.

Limitations

  • Stated: The authors note that sad mood did not produce the opposite effect of positive mood; they suggest mild melancholic music-induced states may not be exclusively aversive and may reflect mixed-feeling states, and that anxiety- or fear-related states may be necessary for attentional narrowing.
  • Evident: The sample was small and limited to 24 university students tested at a restricted time of day, so generalizability is unclear.
  • Evident: The RAT–flanker correlation is an individual-differences, correlational finding under positive mood only; the proposed common inhibitory-control origin is inferential rather than directly measured.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0605198104

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

21 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 36 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Positive moods resulted in greater flanker interference relative to both sad and neutral moods.

    “Consistent with the hypothesized influence of positive affect on visual selective attention, positive moods resulted in greater flanker interference relative to both sad and neutral moods (Fig. 2b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    On incompatible distractor trials, positive moods resulted in pronounced slowing relative to both sad and neutral moods.

    “Focused analyses on incompatible distractor trials demonstrated that positive moods resulted in pronounced slowing relative to both sad [F(1, 46) = 30.37, P < 0.0001] and neutral mood [F(1, 46) = 39.41, P < 0.0001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    More RAT problems were correctly solved in happy mood than in sad or neutral mood.

    “Significantly more RAT problems were correctly solved when participants were in a happy [mean (M) = 6.08, SD = 3.16] compared with sad (M = 5.17, SD = 3.40, t = 2.16, P = 0.04) or neutral (M = 4.75, SD = 2.64, t = 2.30, P = 0.031) mood.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Under positive mood, far incompatible flankers maintained pronounced and greatest interference relative to compatible flankers.

    “By contrast, under positive mood, far incompatible flankers maintained pronounced and greatest interference relative to compatible flankers [F(1, 92) = 31.12, P < 0.0001; Fig. 3d].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Mood valence ratings differed significantly depending on induction phase.

    “Valence ratings differed significantly depending on induction phase [F(3, 66) = 28.22, P < 0.001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9
  • May combine two claims. 6

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The broaden-and-build theory suggests that a primary function of positive emotions is to broaden people's thought-action repertoires, increasing flexibility and enhancing global scope.

    “Within the emerging field of positive psychology, the “broaden-and-build” theory suggests that a primary function of positive emotions is to broaden people's thought-action repertoires (11, 12), increasing their flexibility and enhancing their global scope.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [11] Fredrickson BL. Am Psychol. 2001;56:218–226. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Fredrickson BL. Am Sci. 2003;91:330–335. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Attentional processes depend on inhibitory control, such as suppression of irrelevant information and response inhibition.

    “Attentional processes are those aspects of cognition that allow the control of perception, thought, and behavior and are generally acknowledged to depend on inhibitory control, such as suppression of irrelevant information and response inhibition (8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Hasher L, Lustig C, Zacks RT. In: Variation in Working Memory. Conway ARA, Jarrold C, Kane MJ, Miyake A, Towse JN, editors. New York: Oxford Univ Press; in press. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Positive moods facilitate tasks requiring a more global and encompassing style of information processing, such as in the RAT, but impair those calling for a narrow, focused style, such as selective visual attention.

    “Positive moods thus facilitate tasks requiring a more global (24) and encompassing style of information processing, such as in the RAT, but impair those calling for a narrow, focused style, such as selective visual attention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The RAT and flanker tasks tap putatively different cognitive domains, so a correlation between them reflects a common underlying influence rather than shared task demands.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Materials and Methods

    Three lists of 16 moderately difficult word problems were chosen from Mednick et al.'s RAT task and counterbalanced between mood manipulations.

    “Three lists of 16 moderately difficult word problems were chosen from Mednick et al.'s (20) RAT task and counterbalanced between mood manipulations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Mednick MT, Mednick SA, Mednick EV. J Abnorm Psychol. 1964;69:84–88. doi: 10.1037/h0045994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The result of altered capacity for attentional selection is a broadening of thought-action routines, engendering a broad exploratory rather than narrow vigilant processing mode.

    “The result of this altered capacity for attentional selection is a broadening of thought-action routines (11), engendering a broad exploratory (11, 18, 55) rather than narrow vigilant processing mode (25, 56).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [11] Fredrickson BL. Am Psychol. 2001;56:218–226. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Isen AM, Daubman KA, Nowicki GP. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:1122–1131. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.52.6.1122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [55] Fredrickson BL, Joiner T. Psychol Sci. 2002;13:172–175. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Materials and Methods

    All participants were tested between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., in the middle of the peak and off-peak periods of their circadian cycle.

    “All participants were tested between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., in the middle of the peak and off-peak periods of their circadian cycle (for a review of circadian arousal patterns, see ref. 57).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [57] Hasher L, Goldstein D, May CP. In: Human Learning and Memory: Advances in Theory and Application. Izawa C, Ohta N, editors. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005. pp. 119–217. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Positive affect may represent a fundamental shift in information processing style, reflecting a relaxation of inhibitory control and reducing the tendency to narrowly focus attention across disparate informational domains.

    “As such, positive affect may represent a fundamental shift in information processing style, reflecting a relaxation of inhibitory control and, thereby, reducing the tendency to narrowly focus attention across disparate informational domains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Flanker interference decreases with increasing distance from the central target.

    “Also consistent with the spatially limited scope of attentional focus, previous research has found that flanker interference decreases with increasing distance from the central target, despite response competition demands remaining constant (39, 40).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [39] Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Percept Psychophys. 1974;16:143–149. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] Zeef EJ, Sonke CJ, Kok A, Buiten MM, Kenemans JL. Psychophysiology. 1996;33:555–565. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb02432.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    Positive mood reflects a global relaxation of inhibitory control, resulting in an altered capacity for selective attention from early perceptual to later postsemantic levels of analysis.

    “We suggest that positive mood reflects a global relaxation of inhibitory control (8, 36), resulting in an altered capacity for selective attention from early perceptual to later postsemantic levels of analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] Hasher L, Lustig C, Zacks RT. In: Variation in Working Memory. Conway ARA, Jarrold C, Kane MJ, Miyake A, Towse JN, editors. New York: Oxford Univ Press; in press. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] Friedman NP, Miyake A. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004;133:101–135. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Materials and Methods

    The order of task presentation was counterbalanced between moods and participants.

    “The order of task presentation (RAT first or Flanker first) was counterbalanced between moods that, in turn, were counterbalanced between participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Materials and Methods

    The mood selections have been validated in previous mood research.

    “These selections have been validated in previous mood research (e.g., refs. 58 and 59).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [58] Green JD, Sedikides C, Saltzberg JA, Wood JV, Forzano LA. Br J Soc Psychol. 2003;42:147–157. doi: 10.1348/014466603763276171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [59] Wood JV, Saltzberg JA, Goldsamt LA. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58:899–908. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.58.5.899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Attention can be either narrowly focused or more widely distributed to include surrounding stimuli.

    “For example, attention has been compared with the beam from a spotlight (28, 29) or to the zoom lens of a camera (30, 31), suggesting that attention can be either narrowly focused or more widely distributed to include surrounding stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [28] LaBerge D. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1983;9:371–379. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.9.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [29] Posner MI, Snyder CR, Davidson BJ. J Exp Psychol. 1980;109:160–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] Eriksen CW, St James JD. Percept Psychophys. 1986;40:225–240. doi: 10.3758/bf03211502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Positive mood is associated with greater global or holistic processing versus local processing.

    “Preliminary evidence for this assertion comes from studies examining global precedence, whereby positive mood is associated with greater global or holistic processing (i.e., seeing the forest before the trees) versus local processing (i.e., the trees before the forest) (23, 24).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [23] Basso MR, Schefft BK, Ris MD, Dember WN. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1996;2:249–255. doi: 10.1017/s1355617700001193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] Gasper K, Clore GL. Psychol Sci. 2002;13:34–40. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

13 of 13

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The role of positive affect on attention is underappreciated.

    “Although the interaction between negative affect and attention is an active focus of research, including attentional biases in affective disorders such as anxiety or depression (e.g., ref. 4), much less is appreciated regarding the role positive affect and well-being may have on attention.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The RAT and flanker tasks tap putatively different cognitive domains, so a correlation between them reflects a common underlying influence rather than shared task demands.

    “Although these tasks tap putatively different domains of cognitive function, individual differences in performance during positive mood may reveal a common underlying influence on information processing.”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2, 23) = 3.09, p < .06

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .06 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .065. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .06 · recomputed p = .065

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 23) = 3.09reported p < .06 · recomputed p = .065

    “F(2, 23) = 3.09, p < .06”

  • ConsistentF(3, 66) = 28.22reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3, 66) = 28.22, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(66) = 1.57reported p > .12 · recomputed p = .121

    “t (66) = 1.57, p > .12”

  • Consistentt(66) = 4.81reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (66) = 4.81, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(66) = -4.23reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (66) = −4.23, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 46) = 3.56reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .037

    “F(2, 46) = 3.56, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 23) = 410.91reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 23) = 410.91, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 46) = 54.75reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 46) = 54.75, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 23) = 89reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 23) = 89.00, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 23) = 74.6reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 23) = 74.60, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 46) = 4.69reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(2, 46) = 4.69, p < .02”

  • ConsistentF(2, 46) = 3.86reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .028

    “F(2, 46) = 3.86, p < .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 6.56reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(1, 46) = 6.56, p < .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 4.9reported p < .04 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1, 46) = 4.90, p < .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 30.37reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 46) = 30.37, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 39.41reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 46) = 39.41, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(4, 92) = 3.43reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .012

    “F(4, 92) = 3.43, p < .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 31.12reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 92) = 31.12, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 10.93reported p < .002 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1, 92) = 10.93, p < .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 31.12reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 46) = 31.12, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 46) = 40.07reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 46) = 40.07, p < .0001”

21 of 21

Self-check

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

  • Incorrect denominator degrees of freedom for the mood main effect

    Minor

    The flanker analysis describes mood as a three-level within-subject factor, with 24 participants. Its uncorrected main-effect test should therefore have denominator degrees of freedom (3 − 1) × (24 − 1) = 46, not 23; the other reported mood-related test uses 46.

    Reported 23 · recomputed 46

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. MT Mednick, SA Mednick, EV Mednick J Abnorm Psychol 69, 84–88 (1964).
  2. RJ Davidson Brain Asymmetry, eds RJ Davidson, K Hughdahl (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp. 361–387 (1995).
  3. L Hasher, D Goldstein, CP May Human Learning and Memory: Advances in Theory and Application, eds C Izawa, N Ohta (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 119–217 (2005).
  4. WC Shipley Institute of Living Scale (Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles, 1946).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson, A. K.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-01-02
Volume
104
Issue
1
Pages
383-388
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0605198104
PMC
PMC1765470
OpenAlex
W2012035200
Semantic Scholar
b1618e1ef4c93aea1419fcfcfbab5310880a69df
Cited by
1,051
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 79 · 2013: 87 · 2012: 59
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
positive affect, mood, selective attention, attentional breadth, remote associates task, semantic access, flanker task, visual selective attention, inhibitory control, individual differences, conceptual space, visuospatial attention
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Semantics, Task Performance and Analysis

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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