Eysenck et al.
ABSTRACT
Attentional control theory is an approach to anxiety and cognition representing a major
development of Eysenck and Calvo’s (1992) processing efficiency theory. It is assumed that
anxiety impairs efficient functioning of the goal-directed attentional system and increases the
extent to which processing is influenced by the stimulus-driven attentional system. In addition
to decreasing attentional control, anxiety increases attention to threat-related stimuli.
Adverse effects of anxiety on processing efficiency depend on two central executive
functions involving attentional control: inhibition and shifting. However, anxiety may not
impair performance effectiveness (quality of performance) when it leads to the use of
compensatory strategies (e.g., enhanced effort; increased use of processing resources).
Directions for future research are discussed.
Anxiety is an aversive emotional and motivational state occurring in threatening
circumstances. State anxiety (the currently experienced level of anxiety) is determined
interactively by trait or test anxiety and by situational stress. It can be conceptualized as “a
state in which an individual is unable to instigate a clear pattern of behavior to remove or
alter the event/ object/interpretation that is threatening an existing goal”.
The main focus of the theoretical predictions in this article is the effects of anxiety on
cognitive tasks, in particular those placing significant demands on cognitive resources. The
emphasis is on short-lasting cognitive tasks performed under laboratory conditions. Such
tasks permit the identification of the cognitive processes underlying performance under
controlled conditions.
Processing efficiency theory
The most important distinction in processing efficiency theory is between
effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness refers to the quality of task performance
indexed by standard behavioral measures (generally, response accuracy). In
contrast, efficiency refers to the relationship between the effectiveness of
performance and the effort or resources spent in task performance, with efficiency
decreasing as more resources are invested to attain a given performance level.
Negative effects of anxiety are predicted to be significantly greater on processing
efficiency than on performance effectiveness.
Processing efficiency theory rests on two major assumptions.
o First, worry is the component of state anxiety responsible for effects of anxiety
on performance effectiveness and efficiency. Worry or self-preoccupation is
characterized by concerns over evaluation and failure and expectations of
aversive consequences (e.g., Borkovec, 1994). Worry is activated in stressful
situations (especially in test, evaluative, or competitive conditions) and is most
likely to occur in individuals high in trait anxiety. Wory has two effects:
One effect involves cognitive interference by preempting the
processing and temporary storage capacity of working memory. The
worrisome thoughts consume the limited attentional resources of
working memory, which are therefore less available for concurrent task
processing.
The other effect involves increased motivation to minimize the aversive
anxiety state. This function is accomplished by promoting enhanced
effort and use of auxiliary processing resources and strategies.
o The second assumption concerns the mechanisms and components of
working memory affected by anxiety. Processing efficiency theory is based on
the tripartite working memory model, since expanded into a four-component
model. According to the original model, the limited capacity working memory
system consists of (a) a modality-free central executive involved in the
processing of information and having self-regulatory functions (e.g.,
, Eysenck et al.
performance monitoring, planning, and strategy selection); (b) a phonological
loop for the rehearsal and transient storage of verbal information; and (c) a
visuospatial sketchpad for the processing and transient storage of visual and
spatial information.
Detrimental effects of anxiety are also expected on the phonological
loop rather than on the visuospatial sketchpad because worry typically
involves inner verbal activity rather than imagery representations.
Theoretical limitations
o First, the notion that anxiety impairs the processing efficiency of the central
executive is imprecise because it fails to specify which central executive
functions are most adversely affected by anxiety.
o Second, there are no theoretical assumptions concerning the effects of
distracting stimuli on anxious individuals.
o Third, processing efficiency theory focuses exclusively on cognitive tasks
involving neutral or nonemotional stimuli (defined in terms of their content).
However, the performance of anxious individuals is more affected by threat-
related stimuli (especially social threat) than that of nonanxious ones.
o Fourth, processing efficiency theory does not directly consider circumstances
in which anxious individuals might outperform nonanxious ones.
Attentional control theory: assumptions
The focus is on whether attention is controlled or determined in a goal-driven, top-
down fashion or in a stimulus-driven, bottom-up fashion.
The key assumption that there is an important distinction between processing
efficiency and performance effectiveness is central to attentional control theory.
However, this theory extends the scope of the previous theory and is more precise
about effects of anxiety on the functioning of the central executive.
The most general assumption within attentional control theory is that effects of
anxiety on attentional processes are of fundamental importance to an understanding
of how anxiety affects performance. This means that anxiety typically reduces
attentional focus on the current task unless it involves threatening stimuli. More
specifically, anxiety impairs attentional control, a key function of the central executive.
o Waarom? Angst ontstaat als een bepaald doel dreigend is. Deze dreiging
richting het doel zorgt ervoor dat de aandacht gaat naar het detecteren van de
bron en bepalen hoe je gaat reageren.
Attentional control
Er zijn twee soorten aandachtssystemen
o Een doelgericht aandachtssysteem, beïnvloed door verwachting, kennis en
huidige doelen top-down control of attention.
o Een stimulus-gedreven aandachtssysteem, dat maximaal reageert op
opvallende stimuli bottom-up control of attention.
According to attentional control theory, anxiety disrupts the balance between these
two attentional systems. It is associated with an increased influence of the stimulus-
driven attentional system and a decreased influence of the goal-directed attentional
system. This involves bidirectional influences of each system on the other. For
example, anxiety affects the stimulus-driven attentional system via automatic
processing of threat-related stimuli, thereby decreasing the influence of the goal-
directed attentional system. In addition, reduced influence of goal direction on
attentional processes means that such processes are more affected by salient and
conspicuous stimuli. All these effects of anxiety should be greater when anxiety levels
are especially high (e.g., under stressful conditions).
Three major functions of the central executive:
ABSTRACT
Attentional control theory is an approach to anxiety and cognition representing a major
development of Eysenck and Calvo’s (1992) processing efficiency theory. It is assumed that
anxiety impairs efficient functioning of the goal-directed attentional system and increases the
extent to which processing is influenced by the stimulus-driven attentional system. In addition
to decreasing attentional control, anxiety increases attention to threat-related stimuli.
Adverse effects of anxiety on processing efficiency depend on two central executive
functions involving attentional control: inhibition and shifting. However, anxiety may not
impair performance effectiveness (quality of performance) when it leads to the use of
compensatory strategies (e.g., enhanced effort; increased use of processing resources).
Directions for future research are discussed.
Anxiety is an aversive emotional and motivational state occurring in threatening
circumstances. State anxiety (the currently experienced level of anxiety) is determined
interactively by trait or test anxiety and by situational stress. It can be conceptualized as “a
state in which an individual is unable to instigate a clear pattern of behavior to remove or
alter the event/ object/interpretation that is threatening an existing goal”.
The main focus of the theoretical predictions in this article is the effects of anxiety on
cognitive tasks, in particular those placing significant demands on cognitive resources. The
emphasis is on short-lasting cognitive tasks performed under laboratory conditions. Such
tasks permit the identification of the cognitive processes underlying performance under
controlled conditions.
Processing efficiency theory
The most important distinction in processing efficiency theory is between
effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness refers to the quality of task performance
indexed by standard behavioral measures (generally, response accuracy). In
contrast, efficiency refers to the relationship between the effectiveness of
performance and the effort or resources spent in task performance, with efficiency
decreasing as more resources are invested to attain a given performance level.
Negative effects of anxiety are predicted to be significantly greater on processing
efficiency than on performance effectiveness.
Processing efficiency theory rests on two major assumptions.
o First, worry is the component of state anxiety responsible for effects of anxiety
on performance effectiveness and efficiency. Worry or self-preoccupation is
characterized by concerns over evaluation and failure and expectations of
aversive consequences (e.g., Borkovec, 1994). Worry is activated in stressful
situations (especially in test, evaluative, or competitive conditions) and is most
likely to occur in individuals high in trait anxiety. Wory has two effects:
One effect involves cognitive interference by preempting the
processing and temporary storage capacity of working memory. The
worrisome thoughts consume the limited attentional resources of
working memory, which are therefore less available for concurrent task
processing.
The other effect involves increased motivation to minimize the aversive
anxiety state. This function is accomplished by promoting enhanced
effort and use of auxiliary processing resources and strategies.
o The second assumption concerns the mechanisms and components of
working memory affected by anxiety. Processing efficiency theory is based on
the tripartite working memory model, since expanded into a four-component
model. According to the original model, the limited capacity working memory
system consists of (a) a modality-free central executive involved in the
processing of information and having self-regulatory functions (e.g.,
, Eysenck et al.
performance monitoring, planning, and strategy selection); (b) a phonological
loop for the rehearsal and transient storage of verbal information; and (c) a
visuospatial sketchpad for the processing and transient storage of visual and
spatial information.
Detrimental effects of anxiety are also expected on the phonological
loop rather than on the visuospatial sketchpad because worry typically
involves inner verbal activity rather than imagery representations.
Theoretical limitations
o First, the notion that anxiety impairs the processing efficiency of the central
executive is imprecise because it fails to specify which central executive
functions are most adversely affected by anxiety.
o Second, there are no theoretical assumptions concerning the effects of
distracting stimuli on anxious individuals.
o Third, processing efficiency theory focuses exclusively on cognitive tasks
involving neutral or nonemotional stimuli (defined in terms of their content).
However, the performance of anxious individuals is more affected by threat-
related stimuli (especially social threat) than that of nonanxious ones.
o Fourth, processing efficiency theory does not directly consider circumstances
in which anxious individuals might outperform nonanxious ones.
Attentional control theory: assumptions
The focus is on whether attention is controlled or determined in a goal-driven, top-
down fashion or in a stimulus-driven, bottom-up fashion.
The key assumption that there is an important distinction between processing
efficiency and performance effectiveness is central to attentional control theory.
However, this theory extends the scope of the previous theory and is more precise
about effects of anxiety on the functioning of the central executive.
The most general assumption within attentional control theory is that effects of
anxiety on attentional processes are of fundamental importance to an understanding
of how anxiety affects performance. This means that anxiety typically reduces
attentional focus on the current task unless it involves threatening stimuli. More
specifically, anxiety impairs attentional control, a key function of the central executive.
o Waarom? Angst ontstaat als een bepaald doel dreigend is. Deze dreiging
richting het doel zorgt ervoor dat de aandacht gaat naar het detecteren van de
bron en bepalen hoe je gaat reageren.
Attentional control
Er zijn twee soorten aandachtssystemen
o Een doelgericht aandachtssysteem, beïnvloed door verwachting, kennis en
huidige doelen top-down control of attention.
o Een stimulus-gedreven aandachtssysteem, dat maximaal reageert op
opvallende stimuli bottom-up control of attention.
According to attentional control theory, anxiety disrupts the balance between these
two attentional systems. It is associated with an increased influence of the stimulus-
driven attentional system and a decreased influence of the goal-directed attentional
system. This involves bidirectional influences of each system on the other. For
example, anxiety affects the stimulus-driven attentional system via automatic
processing of threat-related stimuli, thereby decreasing the influence of the goal-
directed attentional system. In addition, reduced influence of goal direction on
attentional processes means that such processes are more affected by salient and
conspicuous stimuli. All these effects of anxiety should be greater when anxiety levels
are especially high (e.g., under stressful conditions).
Three major functions of the central executive:
