On basic (subject) peak, six experiences sizes was in fact defined. This type of consisted of positive cued products, negative cued products, basic non-attachment cued samples, positive uncued products, negative uncued samples, and you will simple low-connection uncued products. The fresh new onset day is actually chose in the event the target photo had been showed. During the next (group) peak, T-evaluation were chosen for testing. Brand new evaluate photos (natural cued samples-emotion cued samples to have attentional wedding, feeling uncued samples-simple uncued trials to own attentional disengagement) of several groups was indeed the newest enter in analysis. To choose if there’s tall activation comparable to per evaluate, a corrected p = 0.05 and you will the amount threshold out-of people dimensions = 20 voxels towards peak (intensity) were used as tolerance.
In repeated measures ANOVA of 2 (group) ? 2 (cue validity) ? 3 (emotion valence), a significant main effect of cue validity was observed (Fstep one,29 = ; p < 0.001); a significant main effect of emotion valence was observed (Fdos,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 (Fdos,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 http://www.datingranking.net/local-hookup/grande-prairie? 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 revealed when you look at the Table 3 below, tall correlations of the two attentional components in almost any thoughts resided in both the newest safe and you will avoidant organizations.
When we opposed the group consequences, the fresh evaluate from avoidant group so you’re able to secure category shown high activation about entire-mind investigation. Avoidant anybody displayed healthier activation from the proper superior temporary gyrus, middle occipital gyrus, in addition to kept medial frontal gyrus, middle occipital gyrus, additional system city, and you will cingulate gyrus than just secure someone (FWE = 0.05, class dimensions = 20) (Fig. 3 and Desk cuatro).
Whenever evaluating the latest attentional wedding of safer anyone, high activation throughout the best fusiform gyrus (x = 45–66, y = ?54–66, z = 3–15) and also the middle occipital gyrus so you can negative feelings (height voxel accentuate, x = 48–54, y = ?75, z = ?3–0,) have been discovered, not in order to self-confident feeling (FWE = 0.05, cluster proportions = 20). Its activation of disengagement are close to the impulse regarding engagement to bad feelings (Fig. 4).