iiiFirst Draft

47First Draft

Emotional States and Goal-Directed Behaviour: Does anxiety affect control of goal-directed behaviour?By Charlotte Springett, 1233124

Submitted in partial fulfilmentof the requirements for the degree ofBachelor of ScienceFinal Year Project

School of PsychologyUniversity of BirminghamWord Count (excluding abstract, figures and appendices) - 4000

Abstract

Emotional stimuli cause interference on goal-directed behaviour due to activation and inhibition of neural networks in the anterior cingulate cortex. This appears to be exaggerated by anxiety, but the valence of emotion has been shown to have different effects depending on the type of emotional stimuli used to induce task-interference. It is not clear how those with higher anxiety levels differ from those with lower anxiety when presented with different emotional stimuli. To test this, anxiety levels were measured with the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 item scale. Schematic faces (either happy, angry, neutral or scrambled) were used as primes, and participants were required to locate a target amongst an array of distractors. Results show that for all participants, there was an effect of emotional stimuli on goal-directed behaviour, albeit a complicated one. Those with higher levels of anxiety were slower in all conditions compared to those with lower anxiety levels. The data also suggests that neutral conditions were processed as a negative stimuli, rather than a control stimulus. The results show that the effect that emotional stimuli have on goal-directed behaviour in those with higher anxiety levels is extremely complex, and potentially dependent upon by stimuli types.ii

Emotional States and Goal-Directed Behaviour: Does anxiety affect control of goal-directed behaviour?Our brains are constantly battling to ignore irrelevant and distracting emotional stimuli in order to focus behaviour to the current task. Emotional stimulis distracting effect on goal-directed behaviour is robust, and has been frequently demonstrated (e.g. Aquino & Arnell, 2007; Bannerman, Milders, & Satiraie, 2009; Dolcos & McCarthy, 2006; Gupta & Raymond, 2012; MacNamara & Proudfit, 2014; Most, Chun, Widders, & Zald, 2005; Srinivasan & Gupta, 2010; Verbruggen & DeHouwer, 2007). Goal-directed behaviour is any action (covert or overt) focused towards completing a particular task (Plessow, Kiesel & Kirschbaum, 2012). Interference occurring as a result of emotional stimuli is thought to be due to disruption within the neurological structures that integrate emotional and attentional information (Bush, Luu, & Posner., 2000). This interference can be increased depending on a persons emotional state (e.g. Checko et al., 2013; Plessow et al., 2012; Solomon, OToole, Hong, and Dennis, 2014).Dichotomous models of cognitive control argue that there are oppositional constraints between cognitive mechanisms which are emotionally responsive, and non-emotional mechanisms, causing emotional stimuli to interfere with cognitive processes. A recent study by Gupta and Raymond (2012) provides evidence from two experiments to suggest that when people are primed with emotional faces, they are slower at identifying a target in a visual-search task. The first experiment involved participants being primed with either an emotional (happy, angry, sad or fearful) or neutral face, and participants were to locate a target letter located either to the left or right of a central fixation point amongst an array of distractor letters. The second experiment was a control condition, and included the same visual-search task. It used both upright and upside down neutral faces, a scrambled face and an empty oval as primes. Gupta and Raymond found that when targets were presented in the left visual field, participants were slower at identifying it than if the target were presented in the right visual field. Goal-directed behaviour in these trials was more affected by emotional primes, which suggests that the right hemisphere (processing the left visual field) is more at risk of interference by emotional stimuli compared to the left hemisphere. Neurobiological research reveals that emotional and attentional information are processed by subdivisions within the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC), and when one is activated, the other is inhibited (Bush et al., 2000; Yamasaki, LaBar, & McCarthy, 2002). Bush and colleagues (2002) describe two subdivisions within the ACC, the dorsal cognitive division (ACcd) which processes cognitive information, and the rostral-ventral affective division (ACad) which processes emotional information. During cognitive tasks, the ACcd activates, and simultaneously inhibits the ACad (Drevets & Raichle, 1998). Similarly, during tasks requiring the processing of emotional information, the ACad is activated, which subsequently inhibits the ACcd (Mayberg, 1997). This suggests that when people are primed with emotional stimuli such as in Gupta and Raymond (2012), their ACad is activated, subsequently inhibiting their ACcd. This inhibition causes participants responses to slow as they have to work significantly harder to answer correctly. It should be noted that it is only reaction times that are affected (processing efficiency), and not accuracy. This seesaw relationship between the divisions appears to be exaggerated in people experiencing certain emotional states. Anxiety is an aversive emotional state arising during circumstances perceived to be threatening (Eysenck, Deraksham, Santos & Calvo, 2007). During anxious states, an individual feels unable to change an event, object, or interpretation that they perceive to be threatening their current goal (Power and Dagleish, 1997). Moreover, anxious individuals perceive facial expressions as an evaluation of themselves and their current situations (Phillipot & Douilliez, 2005). Emotional states are evolutionary adaptations that are crucially involved in the regulation of behaviour during complicated situations (Damiso, 1999). The detrimental effect anxiety has on cognitive performance has been widely demonstrated, with highly anxious individuals showing greater impaired attentional control and inefficiency in processing (Eyesenck & Deraksham, 2011). However, evidence from previous studies regarding how the valence of emotions affect those with high levels of anxiety is confounded. While some have found that those with increased anxiety only display increased distractibility in the presence of threatening stimuli (e.g. Moser et al., 2008; Mueller et al., 2012; Wieser, McTeague, & Keil., 2012; Yoon et al., 2007), others have found that emotional stimuli cause interference in cognitive tasks in a highly anxious population regardless of valence (e.g. Dressler, Mriau, Heekeren, & van der Meer, 2009). The variances in results here may be explained due to differences in the stimuli used. While Mueller et al. (2012) and Wieser et al. (2012) used photos of emotional faces, Dressler et al., (2009) used emotional nouns. This suggests that those with anxiety attribute more emotion to facial expressions compared to words. However, one consistent aspect of the literature is that those with increased anxiety levels are more affected by emotional stimuli compared to those with low anxiety levels (Berggren & Derakshan, 2013; MacNamara & Proudfit, 2014; Moriya & Tanno, 2010)While anxious individuals accuracy during cognitive tasks with emotional distractors is spared, their reaction times significantly increase, suggesting they employ greater effort to achieve accurate performance (Evans et al., 2005; Moser et al., 2008; Qi, Ding, & Li., 2014; Yoon et al., 2007). Eysenck et al. (2007) proposed two theories which may explain why anxious individuals need to employ more effort during cognitive tasks with distracting stimuli. Eysenck and colleagues (2007) first propose the Processing Efficiency theory, suggesting that an anxious individuals worrisome thoughts consume attentional resources, consequently leaving fewer resources for goal-directed behaviour. Anxious individuals must therefore exert more effort during cognitively demanding tasks (e.g. Murry & Janelle. 2007; Owens, Stevenson, Norgate, & Hadwin. 2008), and as a result, should be more at risk from emotional interference during cognitive tasks (Moriya & Tanno., 2011). The second theory posited is the Attentional Control theory, which argues that the systems controlling attention are impaired in anxious individuals by the enhanced processing of the stimulus-driven system which is more reactive to threatening and emotional stimuli. This should result in slower responses when primed with threatening stimuli during cognitive tasks (e.g. Ansari & Derakshan. 2011; Judah, Grant, Mills, & Lechner. 2013). However, as detailed previously, while some research suggests that threatening stimuli cause more interference to anxious individuals (consistent with the Attentional Control theory), others suggest that all task-irrelevant stimuli, representing both threat and safety, will result in slower processing (consistent with the Processing Efficiency theory). In order to explore the inconsistencies regarding the effects of emotional valence, schematic faces will be used as emotional primes in this study. Evans, Wright, Wedig, Pollak, and Rauch., (2005) and Straube Mentzel, and Miltner. (2005) used schematic faces as primes, and found no differences in valence on attentional interference. Schematic faces are diagrams of faces that have all of the structural components of a face, without the risk of inducing gender biases. An example of these gender biases has been demonstrated by Duval, Lovelace, Aarant, and Filion (2013), who previously found that female faces are perceived as more positive over all valences compared to male faces. Therefore, by using schematic faces, this study aims to rid any gender bias related to emotion perception.To address the question of how anxiety interacts with the robust effect emotional stimuli have on goal-directed behaviour, Gupta & Raymonds visual-search task was adapted, and participants anxiety levels were measured. This study therefore aimed to investigate how these factors affect participants cognitive performance. The lateralisation aspect was excluded, rather the general effect of emotion on cognitive performance was assessed. The study measured anxiety levels using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item as developed by Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams and Lowe (2006). The visual-search task required participants to locate a target number within a visual array containing multiple distractor letters and to indicate whether the number was odd or even after having been primed with a control or emotional schematic face. As in Gupta and Raymonds (2012) study, all participants response times (but not accuracy) should decrease when primed with emotional schematic faces. Previous research makes it difficult to predict how our stimuli should affect participants with higher anxiety levels. While Eysencks Processing Efficiency theory and Attentional Control theory differ in how valence of faces should affect a participant, we cannot be entirely sure how our participants will respond. However in this instance, as we used schematic faces (similar to those used in Evans et al., 2005) we predict that highly anxious participants reaction times should be higher in all trials with happy and angry primes compared to those with lower anxiety levels.

MethodsParticipantsTwenty-four right-handed, non-dyslexic students (1:1 male:female ratio, mean age =19.79, SD=0.66) who all reported normal, or corrected-to-normal vision voluntarily participated in exchange for course credit and gave informed consent.QuestionnairesAnxiety was measured using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale which uses a four-point Likert scale (see Appendix A for full questionnaire). The scale has excellent internal consistency (Cronbach =.92). Participants are considered moderately anxious with a score of 10 and above.ApparatusThe questionnaires and stimuli were displayed on a flat screen colour monitor with a 16-in viewable screen (75Hz, resolution, 1280 x 960 pixels). Participant viewing distance was approximately 65cm. E-prime software (version 2.0) operating on a Stone computer with a 3.30 GHz processor generated the stimuli and recorded accuracy, and response times (RTs) in milliseconds (ms). Responses were recorded using the up and down keys of a standard QWERTY keyboard.StimuliFour upright schematic black and white faces (70mm x 90mm) were used as primes. Each was either happy, angry, or neutral in expression, or scrambled (see Figure. 1). The scrambled prime had the same components as the happy face, randomly configured within the oval. The faces were taken from Kreegipuu et al. (2013) and adapted from hman, Lundqvist, and Esteves, (2001). The happy and angry faces made up the experimental condition, while the neutral and scrambled primes acted as controls. The visual-search array consisted of a grey background, two large distractor letters (either black or white, Arial font; 15mm, letters used: W, T, K, A, M, H), one smaller distractor letter and the target number (ranging from 1-6, Arial font; 7.5mm), both displayed on top of the large letters in the contrasting colour (i.e. if the large letter was black, the small letter and number would be white). The target and distractors appeared 35mm to the left or right of the central fixation point (CFP).Experimental Design and ProcedureThe experiment was a within-participants design (i.e. all participants completed the same tasks). Participants first completed GAD-7 at their own pace. This was followed by the visual-search task. Each trial began with the presentation of a 450ms 550ms CFP. The time the CFP was presented for was varied to prevent strategic behaviour as to when the prime was expected. An 85ms prime was subsequently presented, followed by a 15ms CFP, then a 200ms target display. A blank screen was presented until the participant had indicated whether the target was odd or even (see Figure. 2 for an example trial). Participants were asked to maintain fixation to the CFP, to ignore the irrelevant distractors while searching for the target, and to indicate whether the target was odd or even as fast and as accurately as possible. Participants indicated responses using the index and middle fingers of their right hands with the up and down keys. The tasks were counterbalanced so that up or down corresponded to odd or even equally, and the order of the primes were randomised for the participants. The task began with a practice block of 16 trials, with feedback following each trial. The main task consisted of four blocks of 80 trials with no feedback. Participants completed a value-learning task and questionnaires measuring autistic traits and impulsivity before completing the study. This data was used for another study and is not presented here.Data Analysis Data from one participant was excluded as their accuracy scores were below 27%. Trials that were incorrect or had response times (RTs) shorter than 200ms or longer then 3000ms were excluded. The mean RT was then taken for each participant in each trial type (e.g. all trials with happy primes), and any trial with a RT more than three standard deviations away from that mean was excluded. Participants were not from a clinical population, therefore a median split was performed on the questionnaire data to divide participants in to low and high anxiety groups. Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for accuracy and RT (with each prime type as a level), and to compare the anxiety levels to prime types. Final planned post-hoc comparison t-tests were performed. The alpha level was set to .05.

Figure 1. The schematic faces used as primes in the visual search task. A) Happy; B) Angry; C) Neutral; D) ScrambledFigure 2. An example trial participants were presented with a fixation point for 450 550ms, followed the prime, a schematic face (either expressive [happy or angry], neutral, or scrambled), which lasted for 85ms. Another fixation point was very briefly presented (15ms) and was then followed by the visual-search array (200ms) in which three distractor letters were presented at both sides of a central fixation point, and the target number was presented either to the left or right of the central fixation point. A blank screen was then presented until the participant had indicated their response (odd or even). The next trial would then begin immediately after the response was indicated.

ResultsPreliminary AnalysisAfter inspecting the raw data, concerns were raised regarding the scrambled prime. The RTs from the neutral and scrambled face conditions (the two control conditions) were compared with a one-way paired sample t-test. Unexpectedly, the scrambled face caused significantly increased RTs compared to the neutral face (t(22)=-1.995, p