Attachment anxiety and attentional control predict immediate and delayed emotional stroop interference.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment anxiety has been associated with a hyperactivating response to threat. A modified emotional Stroop task was used to investigate temporal characteristics of the threat response by assessing response latencies to interpersonally threatening words (immediate interference) and two directly subsequent neutral filler words (delayed interference). Greater immediate and delayed interference to threatening words was observed (n = 125), with higher levels of attachment anxiety associated with immediate interference to threatening cues, and lower levels with delayed interference. Thus, attachment anxiety was related to the speed at which moderate perceived threat disrupted ongoing processes under top-down attentional control. Furthermore, top-down attentional control moderated the extent to which immediate or delayed interference was observed. Among participants who demonstrated relatively stronger top-down attentional control, immediate and delayed interference to threatening cues was minimal, suggesting that results involving emotional Stroop interference were primarily attributable to participants with relatively weaker top-down attentional control. The implications of these findings are considered within the broader context of performance-based and neuroimaging research, with suggestions for future applied research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".