We can thus extrapolate from this that vigilance

for threatening faces is not an exclusive function of anxiety as previously reported (see review paper by Mogg and Bradley 2005). Once again, a possible explanation for why the present study found significance for threat stimuli in sad mood while others have found this primarily in anxious samples (e.g.,Van Honk et al. 2001; Mogg and Bradley 2002; Mogg et al. 2007) can perhaps be due to the exclusive use of verbal stimuli. Valenced verbal stimuli, although highly valuable for the study of attentional bias, may lack Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the potency necessary to elicit an externally driven attentional bias, namely for threatening angry faces. For instance, a survey of the referenced articles in the review paper by Mogg and Bradley (2005) reveals that with the exception of one study that utilized Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical emotional face stimuli (Bradley et al. 1999), all other experiments utilized emotional words. If the suggestion about faces having more strength for threat detection

holds true, this could partially explain the lack of findings for an external threat bias in both sad mood and depressed samples. Second, although highly speculative at this point, it is not entirely convincing that threatening faces are Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical strictly signals of danger in the environment and thus belong exclusively in the anxiety attentional bias camp. An angry face can possibly be a signal of impending doom and aggression for the anxious observer or a signal of disapproval and rejection for the

sad or depressed observer. Lastly, contrary to our hypothesis, happy mood participants did not pay more Crizotinib IC50 attention to positive stimuli. In the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical present study, these participants paid less attention to negative stimuli suggesting that perhaps the protective bias can also be defined by what healthy controls do not attend to, namely negative stimuli. Summary and Conclusions The present study investigated attentional interference for both emotional words and emotional faces across a wide range of valences. Overall, the present results Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical support earlier studies indicating that people in a sad mood show slower reaction times to processing affective. A limitation of our study merits comment. To assess self-processing within an emotional context, Batimastat it has been recommended that valenced words be restricted to self-referencial stimuli (Fossati et al. 2003). The present study controlled for many aspects of the verbal stimuli (e.g., arousal, word length) but was not exclusively categorized by self-referential words. Overall, the present results support earlier studies indicating that people in a sad mood show slower reaction times to processing affective information (Leppanen 2006), particularly when the stimuli are negatively valenced (Baumeister et al. 2001). We have identified specific verbal and facial emotional cues that lead to interference in attention for those in a sad mood.