↓ Skip to main content

In (visual) search for a new distraction: the efficiency of a novel attentional deployment versus semantic meaning regulation strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In (visual) search for a new distraction: the efficiency of a novel attentional deployment versus semantic meaning regulation strategies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00346
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gal Sheppes, William J. Brady, Andrea C. Samson

Abstract

Cognitive emotion regulation strategies are considered the king's highway to control affective reactions. Two broad categories of cognitive regulation are attentional deployment and semantic meaning. The basic distinctive feature between these categories is the type of conflict between regulatory and emotional processes for dominance, with an early attentional selection conflict in attentional deployment and a late appraisal selection conflict in semantic meaning. However, prior studies that tested the relative efficacy of these two regulatory categories varied the type and the degree of conflict. Our major goal was to test the relative efficacy of a novel attentional deployment strategy (visual search distraction) and a classic semantic meaning strategy (reappraisal) that have a different type of conflict but a matched degree of conflict. Specifically, visual search distraction involves a strong degree of attentional selection conflict manifested in attending subtle non-emotional features that are camouflaged within potent negative emotional stimuli. Reappraisal involves a strong degree of appraisal selection conflict manifested in construing neutral reappraisals that rely on potent negative emotional appraisals. Based on our theoretical model we hypothesized and found that visual search distraction was as effective as cognitive reappraisal in down-regulating the experience of low intensity of negative emotion (Study 1), but more effective, less effortful, and more strongly blocking emotional information processing than cognitive reappraisal when regulating high intensity (Study 2). A final study ruled out a demand characteristics explanation by showing that participants' expectations about how they should feel diverged from how they actually reported feeling following regulation (Study 3). Our findings suggest that the basic difference in the type rather than degree of conflict between attentional deployment and semantic meaning determines strategies' outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 33%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 49%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Design 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,228,822
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,953
of 29,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,638
of 227,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#285
of 321 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 321 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.