Selective processing biases in anxiety-sensitive men and women

Two studies were designed to establish whether high anxiety sensitive (AS) university students selectively process threat cues pertaining to their feared catastrophic consequences of anxiety, and to examine potential gender differences in the selective processing of such threat cues among high versus low AS subjects. Forty students (20 M; 20 F) participated in Study 1. Half were high AS and half low AS, according to scores on the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI). Subjects completed a computerised Stroop colour-naming task involving social/psychological threat (e.g. EMBARRASS; CRAZY), physical threat (e.g. CORONARY; SUFFOCATED), and neutral (e.g. MOTEL; TOWEL) target words. High AS subjects demonstrated more threat-related interference in colour-naming than did low AS subjects, over all. High AS men evidenced greater interference relative to low AS men only for the social/psychological threat stimuli; high AS women evidenced greater interference relative to low AS women only for the physical threat stimuli. Study 2 was designed to replicate and extend the novel Study 1 finding of a cognitive bias favouring the processing of social/psychological threat cues among high AS men. Participants were 20 male university students (10 high AS; 10 low AS). In addition to social/psychological threat, physical threat, and neutral words, a category of positive emotional words (e.g. HAPPINESS; CELEBRATION) was included as a supplementary control on the Stroop. Consistent with Study 1, high AS males evidenced greater Stroop interference than did low AS males, but only for social/psychological threat words. No AS group differences in Stroop interference were revealed for the physical threat or positive words. Clinical implications, and potential theoretical explanations for the gender differences, are discussed.