From the first (subject) height, six feel items have been defined. Such contains positive cued products, bad cued samples, neutral low-attachment cued samples, self-confident uncued samples, bad uncued examples, and you may natural non-connection uncued samples. The beginning day are chosen when the address photos was in fact demonstrated. At the next (group) level, T-evaluating were used in testing. The fresh new compare pictures (natural cued products-emotion cued examples to have attentional wedding, feeling uncued trials-basic uncued samples to possess attentional disengagement) out-of a few teams was basically this new input studies. To determine if or not there is high activation equal to for every evaluate, a reversed p = 0.05 and you will extent endurance out of class size = 20 voxels for the level (intensity) were used since threshold.
In repeated measures ANOVA of 2 (group) ? 2 (cue validity) ? 3 (emotion valence), a significant main effect of cue validity was observed (F1,30 = ; p < 0.001); a significant main effect of emotion valence was observed (F2,62 = ; P < 0.01); the interaction of cue validity and attachment style reached significance (F2,62 = 4.25; p < 0.05) (Table 2 and Fig. 2).
Attentional engagement and disengagement were analyzed by repeated ANOVA of 2 (attachment style) ? 3 (valence). Testing attentional engagement in the cued situation, the main effect of valence reached significance (F2,62 = 8.20; p < 0.01), the attentional engagement effect of positive emotion was ms (p < 0.01) and the attentional engagement effect of negative emotion was ms (p < 0.01). The difference between the two groups did not reach significance. Testing attentional disengagement in the uncued situation, the main effect of valence reached significance (Fstep one,29 = 5.24, p < 0.05). Further data showed the RT of neutral ( ms) was slower than positive emotion ( ms) and negative emotion ( ms), which means they did not show attention disengagement to attachment emotion.
When considering different emotion themes of parent-child and romantic images in the cued situation, no attentional engagement effect was found. In the uncued situation, the repeated ANOVA of 2 (group) ? 3 (valence) ? 2 (attachment theme) showed that the main effect of valence reached significance (F2,62 = 4.23; p < 0.05); the main effect of theme also reached significance (Fdos,62 = 6.85; p < 0.05); the interaction of attachment styles ? valence ? themes reached significance, Fdos,62 = 3.56, p < 0.05. Testing the simple effect of emotion valence, the attentional disengagement effect of avoidant individuals for negative parent-child images was 7.08 ms (p < 0.05) and the attentional disengagement effect of secure individuals for positive parent-child images was ms (p < 0.05). Testing the simple effect of attachment themes, attentional disengagement of secure individuals for positive parent-child images was ms (p < 0.05). Attentional disengagement of avoidant individuals for negative parent-child images was ms (p < 0.05).
As the revealed in Dining table step 3 lower than, significant correlations of these two attentional elements in different feelings resided both in the fresh secure and you will avoidant groups.
Whenever we opposed the group effects, the latest examine off avoidant class to safe group revealed significant activation from the entire-head studies. Leer más