Cognition & Emotion: Please Scroll Down For Article

This article was downloaded by: [Ebner, Natalie C.
]
On: 7 October 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 927616132]
Publisher Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cognition & Emotion

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713682755
Age-group differences in interference from young and older emotional

faces
Natalie C. Ebnera; Marcia K. Johnsona
a
Yale University New Haven, CA, USA
Online publication date: 05 October 2010
To cite this Article Ebner, Natalie C. and Johnson, Marcia K.(2010) 'Age-group differences in interference from young and
older emotional faces', Cognition & Emotion, 24: 7, 1095 — 1116
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02699930903128395
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930903128395
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
COGNITION AND EMOTION
2010, 24 (7), 10951116
Age-group differences in interference from young

and older emotional faces
Natalie C. Ebner and Marcia K. Johnson

Yale University New Haven, CA, USA
Human attention is selective, focusing on some aspects of events at the expense of others. In
particular, angry faces engage attention. Most studies have used pictures of young faces, even when
comparing young and older age groups. Two experiments asked: (1) whether task-irrelevant faces of
young and older individuals with happy, angry, and neutral expressions disrupt performance on a
face-unrelated task; (2) whether interference varies for faces of different ages and different facial
expressions; and (3) whether young and older adults differ in this regard. Participants gave speeded
Downloaded By: [Ebner, Natalie C.] At: 12:43 7 October 2010
responses on a number task while irrelevant faces appeared in the background. Both age groups were
more distracted by own- than other-age faces. In addition, young participants’ responses were slower
with angry than happy faces, whereas older participants’ responses were slower with happy than
angry faces in the background. Factors underlying age-group differences in interference from
emotional faces of different ages are discussed.
Keywords: Interference; Attention bias; Own-age bias; Emotion; Facial expression.
Human attention is necessarily selective. Our to take place with only minimal attention and
environment is highly complex and our cognitive often without conscious awareness, guiding atten-
system limited, so that not all stimuli can be fully tion to salient events, even when they occur outside
analysed. The ability to focus attention on critical the current focus of attention (Merikle, Smilek, &
elements of the environment while ignoring dis- Eastwood, 2001). In interaction with such bottom-
tracting information is essential for adaptive up factors as stimulus salience, top-down factors,
behaviour and psychological well-being (Desi- such as expectations and current goals, influence
mone & Duncan, 1995; Hasher & Zacks, 1988; where, how, and what is attended (Compton,
Kastner & Ungerleider, 2001; Miller & Cohen, 2003; Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Feinstein,
2001). Some degree of stimulus processing seems Goldin, Stein, Brown, & Paulus, 2002; Yantis,
Correspondence should be addressed to: Natalie C. Ebner, Department of Psychology, Yale University, PO Box 208205, New
Haven, CT 065208205, USA. E-mail: natalie.ebner@yale.edu
This research was conducted at Yale University and supported by the National Institute on Aging Grant AG09253 awarded to
MKJ and by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG EB 436/11) awarded to NCE.
The authors wish to thank the Yale Cognition Project group for discussions of the studies reported in this paper, Kathleen
Muller and William Hwang for assistance in data collection, and Carol L. Raye for helpful comments on earlier versions of this
paper.
# 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business 1095
http://www.psypress.com/cogemotion DOI:10.1080/02699930903128395
EBNER AND JOHNSON
1998). Rapid detection of stimuli with emotional distract from a task (Jenkins, Burton, & Ellis,
significance is crucial for survival and advantageous 2002; Khurana, Smith, & Baker, 2000; Lavie, Ro,
for our social interactions (Öhman & Mineka, & Russell, 2003; Ro, Russel, & Lavie, 2001;
2001). Therefore, emotional information should Young, Ellis, Flude, McWeeney, & Hay, 1986;
be more likely to attract attention than other see Palermo & Rhodes, 2007, for a review; but see
stimuli and be privileged for receiving ‘‘preatten- Brown, Huey, & Findlay, 1997). Even very briefly
tive’’ analysis. (pre-consciously) presented faces are associated
Although the emotional value of stimuli differs with heightened activation of neural structures
between individuals, there are some stimuli*such involved in emotion processing and attention
as human faces*that are emotionally significant (Cunningham et al., 2004; Morris, Öhman, &
to almost all individuals. Human faces constitute a Dolan, 1998, 1999; Pourtois, Grandjean, Sander,
unique category of biologically and socially im- & Vuilleumier, 2004; Schupp et al., 2004;
portant stimuli (Bruce & Young, 1998). Faces Whalen et al., 2001). Studies with unilateral
occur frequently in our lives, and they are visual neglect patients show that contralesionally
associated with important outcomes (e.g., food, presented faces are more often detected than
safety, social interactions). Even brief glances at a scrambled faces and other shapes (Vuilleumier,
face are sufficient to extract various person-related 2000); and prosopagnosic patients, even though
information such as identity, familiarity, age, unable to recognise familiar faces, show a normal
gender, attractiveness, trustworthiness, ethnic pattern of interference from distracter faces (de
origins, direction of gaze, or emotional state Haan, Young, & Newcombe, 1987; Sergent &
(Engell, Haxby, & Todorov, 2007; Palermo & Signoret, 1992). Taken together, a broad range of
Rhodes, 2007; Vuilleumier, 2002). There is also studies suggest that faces preferentially capture or
evidence that perception of faces is processed in a hold attention and may even be preattentively
category sensitive brain region (Farah, 1996; processed.
Haxby, Hoffman, & Gobbini, 2000; Kanwisher,
McDermott, & Chun, 1997; Perrett, Hietanen,
Selective attention for, and interference
Oram, & Benson, 1992; Puce, Allison, Asgari,
from, emotional faces
Gore, & McCarthy, 1996; but see Gauthier,
Skudlarski, Gore, & Anderson, 2000). These Studies have also investigated whether different
factors make faces ideal candidates for studying facial expressions differentially capture or hold
selective attention and preattentive processing attention and differentially distract from tasks
(Öhman, Flykt, & Lundqvist, 2000; Öhman & where they are not relevant (see Palermo &
Mineka, 2001). Rhodes, 2007, for a review). Evidence to date
points to preferential processing of, and inter-
ference from, faces with negative facial expres-
Preferential processing of faces
sions, in particular those portending danger or
Multiple lines of research suggest that faces threat (i.e., angry faces or fearful faces), compared
receive high priority in attention. Results from to neutral or happy faces in healthy young adults
infant studies, for instance, show that faces (Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, 2001; Hansen &
preferentially engage attention compared to other Hansen, 1988; Mogg & Bradley, 1999; Öhman,
stimuli (Goren, Sarty, & Wu, 1975; Johnson, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001; van Honk, Tuiten,
Dziurawiec, Ellis, & Morton, 1991). Behavioural de Haan, van den Hout, & Stam, 2001; see
studies with healthy young adults have found that Palermo & Rhodes, 2007, for a review; but see
faces capture attention more readily than other Mack & Rock, 1998; White, 1995). In their
stimuli such as pictures of musical instruments or important early study, using a visual search
appliances, and that people attend to faces even paradigm with schematic faces, Hansen and
when they are not task relevant or when they Hansen (1988) found that an angry face among
1096 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

INTERFERENCE FROM FACES
happy faces was detected significantly faster and or evolutionary standpoint that it is adaptive to
with fewer errors than a happy face among angry preferentially attend and quickly respond to threat-
faces. Moreover, time needed to detect the angry related, potentially harmful stimuli (LeDoux,
face among happy faces was not affected by the 1998; Öhman & Mineka, 2001).
number of happy faces, suggesting highly efficient
detection of faces with angry facial expressions.
Age-group differences in selective attention
Recently, Öhman et al. (2001) replicated this
for, and interference from, emotional faces
‘‘face-in-the-crowd’’ effect across several experi-
ments controlling for various potential confounds: Does this preferential attention to, and interfer-
They found faster and more accurate detection of ence from, angry faces persist throughout the
angry than happy faces (among emotional as well lifespan? Results of the studies that compare
as neutral faces), that held for different search set young and older adults are mixed. On the one
sizes, and for inverted as well as upright faces. hand, there is some evidence of an ‘‘anger super-
Angry faces were also more quickly and accurately iority effect’’ for older adults similar to that of
detected than were other negative faces (i.e., sad young adults (Hahn, Carlson, Singer, & Gron-
or ‘‘scheming’’ faces), which suggests that there is lund, 2006; Mather & Knight, 2006). Using a
an ‘‘anger superiority effect’’ that may be related to visual search paradigm, Hahn et al. (2006) asked
danger or threat rather than to negative valence participants to search for a discrepant facial
generally. Interestingly, on displays with only expression in a matrix of otherwise homogeneous
angry distracter faces but no target face present, faces. Both young and older adults were faster to
participants were significantly slower to indicate detect an angry face in an array of non-angry faces
that there was no target face than on displays with than a happy or a neutral face in arrays of non-
only neutral or only happy distracter faces but no happy or non-neutral faces. Similarly, Mather and
target face present. This suggests that participants Knight (2006) showed that both age groups were
‘‘dwell’’ longer on, or seem to have more difficulty faster to detect a discrepant angry face than a
disengaging attention from, angry compared to discrepant happy or sad face.
neutral or happy faces. In line with this finding, in On the other hand, Hahn et al. (2006) also
the context of an emotional Stroop task, van found that young adults were slower to search
Honk et al. (2001) found that naming the colour arrays of angry faces for non-angry faces than to
of an angry face took longer than naming the search happy or neutral arrays for non-happy or
colour of a neutral face. Furthermore, Fox et al. non-neutral faces, whereas older adults were faster
(2001), using a spatial cuing paradigm, found that to search through angry arrays than through
when an angry compared to a happy or a neutral happy or neutral arrays. These findings seem to
face was presented in one location on the computer suggest that detection and monitoring of negative
followed by a target presented in another location, information does not change with age but that
highly state anxious individuals took longer to older adults may become better able to disengage
detect the target, suggesting that the presence of from negative as opposed to positive information,
an angry face had a strong impact on the thus arguing for differences between young and
disengagement of attention (see Milders, Sahraie, older adults regarding distraction from angry
Logan, & Donnellon, 2006; Pourtois et al., 2004, versus happy faces.
for similar effects for fearful faces). Similarly, studies of age-group differences in
In sum, a wide range of studies across various attention preference suggest that older adults are
experimental paradigms suggest that, compared more likely than young adults to favour positive
to neutral (or to happy) faces, angry and fearful and to avoid negative faces (see Carstensen &
faces more readily capture or hold attention, Mikels, 2005; Mather & Carstensen, 2005, for
and distract from other stimuli. This ‘‘threat- reviews). Mather and Carstensen (2003) used a
advantage’’ is often explained from an ecological dot-probe task in which participants saw pairs of
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1097

EBNER AND JOHNSON
faces, one emotional (happy, sad, or angry) and one explanations. There is, for example, evidence that
neutral. Young adults did not exhibit an attention older adults become more motivated to maximise
bias toward any category of faces, whereas older positive affect and minimise negative affect as an
adults showed preferential attention to happy adaptive emotion regulation strategy (Carstensen,
compared with neutral faces and to neutral com- Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). This, then, seems
pared with sad or angry faces. Recording eye to be reflected in older adults’ preferential atten-
movements during free viewing of emotional tion to positive over negative information (or
neutral face pairs, Isaacowitz, Wadlinger, Goren, attention away from, and suppression of, negative
and Wilson (2006a) observed preferential gaze relative to positive information; Carstensen &
away from sad and toward happy faces in older Mikels, 2005; Mather & Carstensen, 2005) and
adults, whereas young adults also looked away should result in stronger distraction by happy than
from sad faces but did not look toward happy faces. angry faces in older adults. Another explanation
Further supporting these age-group differences, stems from evidence that older adults are less able
Isaacowitz, Wadlinger, Goren, and Wilson and take longer to correctly identify facial expres-
(2006b) reported an attention bias (in relation to sions of anger as compared to happiness in
neutral faces) toward happy faces and away from emotion-identification tasks (Ebner & Johnson,
angry faces in older adults, whereas young adults 2009; see Ruffman, Henry, Livingstone, & Phil-
showed only a bias toward fearful faces. Directly lips, 2008, for a review).
comparing the two age groups, older adults looked
less at angry and fearful faces than young adults,
Attention toward own-age faces
but the age groups did not differ with respect to
happy or sad faces (but see Sullivan, Ruffman, & It is important to note that all these studies on
Hutton, 2007). Furthermore, a recent eye-tracking selective attention for, and interference from,
study by Allard and Isaacowitz (2008) found that emotional faces reported so far have only used
regardless of whether positive, negative, and faces of young or middle-aged individuals. Pre-
neutral images (not faces) were viewed under full vious research in face recognition and person
or divided attention, older adults demonstrated a identification using mostly neutral faces has
fixation preference for positive and neutral in shown, however, that adults of different ages are
comparison to negative images. These results more accurate and faster in oldnew recognition
suggest that older adults’ preference toward posi- memory tests for faces and persons of their own
tive over negative stimuli may not necessitate full compared to other age groups (referred to as the
cognitive control but also holds when individuals ‘‘own-age bias’’; Anastasi & Rhodes, 2006; Bäck-
are distracted by competing information (see also man, 1991; Bartlett & Fulton, 1991; Lamont,
Thomas & Hasher, 2006; but see Knight et al., Stewart-Williams, & Podd, 2005; Mason, 1986;
2007, for contrary findings). Perfect & Harris, 2003; Wright & Stroud, 2002).
Taken together, the literature suggests that This memory effect suggests that the age of the
both young and older adults are able to rapidly face is one important factor that influences
detect angry faces. At the same time, older adults whether and how faces are attended to and may
seem to be better at ignoring or disengaging from influence the extent to which a face distracts from
angry than happy faces and preferentially attend a face-unrelated task. The own-age effect is
to happy over angry faces. Older adults might typically explained by the amount of exposure an
therefore be more distracted by happy than angry individual has to classes of faces, assuming that
faces, whereas young adults might be more people more frequently encounter own-age faces
distracted by angry than happy faces. than other-age faces (Ebner & Johnson, 2009)
Why would older but not young adults be less and are therefore relatively more familiar with
able to ignore, and be more distracted by, happy faces of their own age group (Bartlett & Fulton,
than angry faces? The literature offers different 1991). Evidence of an own-age bias in memory

and person identification clearly challenges find- would give slower number responses when
ings and interpretation of attention studies, as young as compared to older faces were
young faces may be less relevant and salient for presented in the background. Correspond-
older than younger participants. ingly, for older participants we expected
slower number responses when older as
Overview of the present study compared to young faces were presented
The central aim of the present study was to in the background.
bring together the literature on selective atten- 3. Are young participants more distracted by
tion to, and interference from, emotional faces angry compared to happy or neutral faces,
in young and older adults and evidence of own- whereas older participants are more distracted
age effects in face processing. To our knowledge, by happy than angry or neutral faces? Con-
so far there has been no systematic investiga- sidering the literature on preferential atten-
tion, involving both young and older partici- tion to, and increased distraction potential
pants, of interference from faces displaying of, angry relative to happy or neutral faces
young and older individuals with different facial in young adults (see Palermo & Rhodes,
expressions. 2007, for a review), we expected that young

The present study used a Multi-Source Inter- participants would give slower number
ference Task, in which participants responded to responses when angry as compared to happy
numbers by pressing a button indicating which of or neutral faces appeared in the background.
three numbers was different from the other two Based on some evidence that older adults,
(Bush & Shin, 2006). In our version of the task, even though equally likely as young adults
to-be-ignored faces of young or older individuals to detect angry faces, seem to be better at
displaying happy, angry, and neutral facial expres- ignoring or disengaging from angry than
sions appeared in the background. Across two happy faces (Hahn et al., 2006) and pre-
experiments, one with young participants (Ex- ferentially attend to happy over angry faces
periment 1) and one with both young and older (Isaacowitz et al., 2006b; Mather & Car-
participants (Experiment 2), we addressed three stensen, 2003), we hypothesised that older
research questions: participants would give slower number
1. Do task-irrelevant faces slow down response responses when happy than angry faces
times on face-unrelated number trials com- were presented in the background.
pared to trials during which no faces are We did not have specific expectations regarding
presented? Based on findings that faces
the interaction between age and expression of
have a strong interference potential even
the face in terms of face-interference effects. To
when they are task-irrelevant or distract
our knowledge, there is no literature on this
from a task (see Palermo & Rhodes, 2007,
for a review), we predicted that young point. On the one hand, it is possible that both
participants would give slower responses to factors have independent effects and do not
number trials when task-distracting faces interact. On the other hand, it is also possible
were simultaneously presented in the back- that the impact of one factor would depend on
ground than when no faces were presented. the other; for example, that certain facial
2. Is there more interference from own- as expressions (e.g., anger, happiness) might espe-
opposed to other-age faces in young and older cially attract or hold attention when shown by
participants as they respond to the number own-age as opposed to other-age individuals
task? Referring to the own-age bias in face because of the potentially greater significance of
processing (Bäckman, 1991; Lamont et al., emotion expression in a more probable interac-
2005), we expected that young participants tion partner.

EBNER AND JOHNSON
EXPERIMENT 1 digits, two matching and one different (e.g., 100,

232), and that the digit that was different from the
Experiment 1 tested young participants. The other two was the target number. For example,
purpose of this experiment was to examine: given 100, the digit 1 would be the target, and
given 232, the digit 3 would be the target. Their
1. whether task-irrelevant, to-be-ignored faces task was to report, via a button-press, the identity
of young and older individuals with differ- of the target number, regardless of its position, as
ent facial expressions (i.e., happy, angry, quickly and as accurately as possible. Participants
neutral) distracted attention from a face- used their right index, middle, and ring fingers on
unrelated primary task; the number pad of their keyboard to press the
2. whether own-age faces (i.e., young faces) buttons marked one, two, and three from left to
distracted attention from a face-unrelated right.
task more than other-age faces (i.e., older Participants were informed that easy (congru-
faces); and ent) and difficult (incongruent) trials would be
3. whether angry faces distracted attention randomly intermixed. On the easy trials the
more from a face-unrelated task than happy distracter numbers were always 0s, the target
or neutral faces. number always matched its position on the

button-press (e.g., 100), and the font size of 0s
Methods was smaller than that of the target number. On
Participants the difficult trials the distracter numbers were 1s,
Twenty-two young adult undergraduate students 2s, or 3s, the target never matched its position on
(age range 1825 years, M20.2, SD1.68, 37% the button-press (e.g., 232, 233), and the target
female) were recruited through the university’s numbers were equally likely to be in large or small
undergraduate participant pool and via flyers and font size. In addition to the two difficulty levels,
received course credit or monetary compensation the task comprised two types of trials, baseline and
for participating. Participants reported good gen- face interference, randomly intermixed. Participants
eral emotional well-being (M4.05, SD0.14) were told that on some trials, simultaneous with
and good general physical health (M3.95, SD the numbers, faces would appear in the back-
0.25; scales described below). ground (i.e., face-interference trials) but that they
should ignore the faces and focus on the number
task.
Procedure In all trials, the three numbers remained on the
Participants were told about the testing procedure screen for 1000 ms. On face-interference trials, the
and signed a consent form. Then, using a inter-stimulus interval, during which a fixation
computer, they worked on a modified version of cross appeared, was 500 ms, and faces appeared
the Multi-Source Interference Task (MSIT; Bush 100 ms before the onset of the number trial. To
& Shin, 2006; Bush, Shin, Holmes, Rosen, & equate the inter-stimulus interval, in baseline trials
Vogt, 2003). We decided on this specific task as the fixation cross presentation was extended for
the face-unrelated task for multiple reasons: The 100 ms (for a total of 600 ms). Numbers and
MSIT has been shown to reliably and robustly fixation crosses were printed in red and numbers
activate the cognitive attention network, it pro- appeared on the face centred vertically on the
duces a robust and temporally stable interference bridge of the nose.
effect within participants, and it is easy to learn The task comprised 288 trials (144 baseline
(Bush & Shin, 2006). and 144 face-interference trials), with equal
Figure 1 presents the version of the MSIT used numbers of easy and difficult trials in both
in Experiment 1. Participants were told they conditions. Types of trials were pseudo-randomly
would see, in the centre of the screen, three intermixed with the constraint that a trial was

Experiment 1
Baseline & Face Interference
Baseline/Easy
Face
Interference/Difficult
Baseline/Difficult
100
+
232
+ 233
1000 ms
500 ms
100 ms …
1000 ms
600 ms
1000 ms
Experiment 2
Face Interference Only
Easy
Difficult
Difficult
100
+
23 2 +
233
1000 ms …
500 ms
1000 ms
500 ms
1000 ms
Figure 1. Multi-source interference tasks used in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. Note: Sample number trials: ‘‘100’’ correct response1;
‘‘232’’ correct response3; ‘‘233’’ correct response2. Numbers and fixations crosses were printed in red.
never followed by a trial that was exactly the same the categories (age of face, gender of face, facial
and that never more than two easy or two difficult expression) was represented equally often
trials and never more than three baseline or face- throughout the presentation order, and that no
interference trials were presented in a row. For the more than two faces of the same category followed
face-interference trials, each of 72 faces was each other. The presentation orders were further
presented twice: once in combination with an controlled for hair colour and attractiveness of
easy trial and once in combination with a difficult faces as rated by six independent raters (four
trial. Presented faces belonged to one of two age young and two older adults).
groups (young faces: 1831 years, older faces: 69 The faces used in this experiment were taken
80 years) and either had a happy, an angry, or a from the FACES database (Ebner, Riediger, &
neutral facial expression. Within each age group, Lindenberger, in press). Seventy-two faces were
there were equal numbers of male and female selected that were equated across age groups
faces and equal numbers of each expression. for attractiveness and distinctiveness, and that
Twelve stimuli were presented for each age of displayed distinct versions of happy, angry,
face by facial expression combination. Presenta- and neutral expressions. The stimulus presenta-
tion of a specific face with a specific expression tion was controlled using E-Prime (Schneider,
was counterbalanced across participants. The Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002). Responses and
presentation orders were pseudo-randomised response times were recorded. For both tasks, the
with the constraints that each combination of experimenter gave verbal instructions and the

EBNER AND JOHNSON
program provided written instructions and prac- unrelated number task as compared to trials with no
tice runs. faces presented in the background, we compared
At the end of the session participants indicated overall performance on baseline trials with overall
their general emotional well-being (‘‘In general, performance on face-interference trials. We con-
how would you rate your emotional well-being? ’’; ducted a 2 (Trial Difficulty: easy, difficult) 2
response options: 1‘‘distressed ’’ to 5‘‘excel- (Trial Type: baseline, face interference) repeated-
lent ’’), their general physical health (‘‘In general, measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on re-
how would you rate your health and physical well- sponse time on the number task with Trial
being? ’’; response options: 1‘‘poor ’’ to 5‘‘ex- Difficulty and Trial Type as the two within-subject
cellent’’), the extent to which they had felt factors. Results are presented in Table 1. The main
distracted by the faces (‘‘Overall, how much do effect for Trial Type was not significant, Wilks’ l
you feel you were distracted by the faces? ’’; response 0.93, F(1, 21)1.20, p.29, h2p .07, but there
options: 1‘‘not distracted at all’’ to 5‘‘very was a significant main effect for Trial Difficulty,
distracted ’’), as well as what type of face (age of Wilks’ l0.06, F(1, 21)293.84, pB.0001,
face, facial expression) had been more distracting 2
/h .95, and a significant Trial Type Trial
p
(‘‘Which type of face was more distracting? ’’; re- Difficulty interaction, Wilks’ l0.78, F(1,
sponse options: young, old, no difference, and happy, 21)4.67, p.05, h2p .22. Responses were
angry, neutral, no difference, respectively). Test faster for the easy compared to the difficult trials.
sessions typically took 30 minutes. In addition, responses for the difficult, but not the
easy, trials were slower when faces were presented
Results and discussion in the background compared to when no faces were
presented.
Data preparation
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, error rates were low.
Erroneous or null responses (5.3% of all trials) and Interference as a function of type of face
the single anticipatory (B 300 ms) response were Next, we examined whether young faces dis-
discarded from analyses. Preliminary analyses tracted attention more from the number task
revealed no effect of gender of participant, no than older faces and whether angry faces dis-
effect of gender of face, and no interaction; all tracted attention more than happy or neutral
subsequent analyses were therefore conducted faces. Even though we did not have specific
across male and female participants as well as expectations regarding the interaction between
male and female faces. age and expression of the face, we conducted a 2
Alpha was set at .05 for all statistical tests. (Age of Face: young, older) 3 (Facial Expres-
sion: happy, angry, neutral) repeated-measures
Interference independent of type of face ANOVA on response time with Age of Face
To examine whether to-be-ignored faces (inde- and Facial Expression as within-subject factors;
pendent of age and expression of the face) dis- this allowed us to examine the interaction be-
tracted young participants’ attention from the face- tween both factors in addition to their main
Table 1. Mean response times (RT; in milliseconds), standard deviations (SD), and percent of errors (%E) for young participants,
Experiment 1, baseline and face-interference trials
Easy trials Difficult trials
Trial type RT SD %E RT SD %E
Baseline trials 538 65 0.8 710 75 9.8

Face-interference trials 535 61 1.0 718 75 9.6

Table 2. Mean response times (RT; in milliseconds), standard deviations (SD), and percent of errors (%E) for young participants,
Experiment 1, face-interference trials
Easy trials Difficult trials
Stimulus RT SD %E RT SD %E
Young faces 537 62 0.8 727 84 8.9

Older faces 534 62 1.3 708 71 10.2
Happy faces 534 65 0.5 708 78 8.8
Angry faces 534 64 0.7 730 71 9.5
Neutral faces 537 61 1.8 715 83 10.4
effects. Because of the substantial difference in Summary

response times for easy versus difficult trials, we There were several significant effects with respect
ran this analysis separately for easy and difficult to difficult trials: In line with our expectations,
trials. young participants responded slower on the
number task when faces were presented in the
Easy trials. None of the effects reached signifi- background than when no faces were presented.
cance for easy trials: main effect for Age of This suggests that the task-irrelevant faces dis-
Face, Wilks’ l0.96, F(1, 21)0.79, p.39, tracted from the face-unrelated number task. Also
h2p .05, main effect for Facial Expression, Wilks’ as expected, participants were more distracted on
l0.98, F(2, 20)0.15, p.87, h2p .02, the number task when faces of their own (i.e.,
and Age of FaceFacial Expression inter- young faces) as compared to the other age group
action, Wilks’ l0.93, F(2, 20)0.57, p.57, (i.e., older faces) appeared in the background. In
h2p .07 (see Table 2). addition, facial expression influenced task perfor-
mance: Partly confirming our expectations, young
Difficult trials. As summarised in Table 2, for participants were distracted more by angry than
difficult trials, the main effects for Age of Face, happy faces; but there were no differences be-
Wilks’ l0.80, F(1, 21)4.18, p.05, h2p tween neutral and happy or angry faces. Note that
.20, and Facial Expression, Wilks’ l0.66, F(2, none of these effects were significant for easy
20)4.12, p.04, h2p .34, were significant. trials. An explanation for differences in findings
The interaction did not reach significance, Wilks’ regarding easy versus difficult trials is discussed
l0.95, F(2, 20)0.42, p.67, h2p .05. As below.
expected, participants gave slower responses on
the number task when young compared to older
faces were presented in the background. Also EXPERIMENT 2
confirming our expectations, participants gave
slower responses with angry than happy faces in Experiment 2 tested young and older participants.
the background, t(21)2.95, p.01. However, The purpose of Experiment 2 was to examine
responses on trials with neutral background faces whether young and older participants differed in
were not significantly different from trials with interference from faces of different ages and with
happy, t(21)1.02, p.32, or angry faces, different facial expressions. Regarding young
t(21) 1.81, p.09.1 participants, we expected to replicate results for
1
When asked to indicate the extent of distraction by the faces, participants reported to have been somewhat distracted by the
faces (M2.73, SD0.15), with the majority of participants indicating that young faces were more distracting than older faces and
that angry faces were more distracting than happy or neutral faces. This suggests some participant insight into face-interference
effects.

EBNER AND JOHNSON
difficult trials in Experiment 1 that young faces than young participants. Neither positive affect
would distract more from a face-unrelated task nor negative affect had an influence on distraction
than older faces and that angry faces would by happy faces, positive affect: bY .07,
distract more than happy faces. Correspondingly, tY(31) 0.40, p.69; bO .10, tO(19)0.40,
regarding older participants, we hypothesised that p.69; negative affect: bY .18, tY(31)1.01,
older faces would distract more from a face- p.32; bO .02, tO(19) 0.06, p.95,
unrelated task than young faces and that happy angry faces, positive affect: bY .09, tY(31)
faces would distract more than angry faces. This 0.50, p.62; bO .05, tO(19)0.21, p.83;
prediction was based on previous evidence of an negative affect: bY .19, tY(31)1.07, p.29;
own-age effect in face processing (Bäckman, bO .10, tO(19) 0.38, p.71, or neutral
1991; Lamont et al., 2005) and observations that faces, positive affect: bY .05, tY(31) 0.28,
older adults are better at disengaging from angry p.78; bO .10, tO(19)0.38, p.71; negative
than happy faces (Hahn et al., 2006) and affect: bY .23, tY(31)1.24, p.22; bO
preferentially attend to happy relative to angry .05, tO(19) 0.21, p.84, in young or older
faces (Isaacowitz et al., 2006b; Mather & Car- participants, and these variables were therefore not
stensen, 2003). further considered. Young participants scored
better than older participants in visual motor

Methods processing speed (MY 68.6, SD9.31; MO
45.5, SD10.39); F(1, 50)67.65, pB.0001,
Participants h2p .58, but the age groups did not differ in
The final sample consisted of young adult under- vocabulary (MY 22.9, SD4.20; MO 22.0,
graduate students (age range 1822 years, M SD4.76); F(1, 50)0.50, p.48, h2p .01;
19.3, SD1.34, 56% female) recruited through tests are described below. Older participants
the university’s undergraduate subject pool and 20 scored high on the Mini-Mental State Examina-
older adults (age range 6584 years, M74.1, tion (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh,
SD4.81, 50% female) from the community. 1975; M28.9, SD1.22; max possible30),
Participants received course credit or monetary suggesting no indication of early dementia in this
compensation. Older participants reported a mean group.2
of 17.8 years of education (SD2.4). Physical
and cognitive characteristics of the sample were Procedure
comparable to Experiment 1. The age groups did Participants were first informed about the testing
not differ in reported general health and physical procedure and signed a consent form. They then
well-being (MY 4.25, SD0.76; MO 4.00, filled out the short version of the Positive and
SD0.82); F(1, 50)1.22, p.28, h2p .02, or Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson,
in reported general emotional well-being (MY Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Next, participants
3.91, SD0.96; MO 4.00, SD0.47); F(1, worked on the MSIT. The MSIT task was
50)0.16, p.69, h2p .00. Older participants identical to the one administered in Experiment
reported higher current positive affect (MY 1 (see Figure 1), except that we included only face-
2.63, SD0.62; MO 3.53, SD0.79); F(1, interference trials (no baseline trials) to reduce
50)20.63, pB.0001, h2p .30, and lower nega- distraction by frequent switching between baseline
tive affect (MY 1.39, SD0.52; MO 1.13, and face-interference trials, especially for older
SD0.15); F(1, 50)4.65, p.04, h2p .09, adults. In addition, numbers and faces appeared
2
With the exception of one older female participant, who had contacted the lab independently for study participation, dementia
screening for older participants had taken place between one to two years earlier in the context of participants’ entry into the lab’s
participant pool.

Table 3. Mean response times (RT; in milliseconds), standard deviations (SD), and percent of errors (%E), for young and older participants, Experiment 2, face-interference trials
simultaneously (stimulus presentation: 1000 ms,
12.0
11.0
7.3
9.4
9.0
%E
inter-stimulus interval: 500 ms). As before, the
stimulus presentation was controlled using E-
Older participants
Prime and responses and response times were
recorded, and the experimenter gave verbal in-
SD
56
63
60
54
67
structions and the program provided written
instructions and practice runs. There were 144
(face-interference) trials. Trial types were again
953
946
952
948
948
RT
Difficult trials
pseudo-randomly intermixed with the same con-
straints as in Experiment 1. Again, each of 72 faces
was presented twice, once in combination with an
easy trial and once in combination with a difficult
%E
8.0
6.5
7.8
6.7
7.3
trial, in identical order as in Experiment 1.
Young participants
After the MSIT, participants filled in an
abbreviated version of the verbal subscale of the
SD
74
74
79
79
79
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale vocabulary test
(WAIS; Wechsler, 1981; max score30). In this

task participants were asked to give a simple
737
732
731
733
741
RT
definition for each of 15 words (e.g., obstruct,
sanctuary). Responses were coded as 0‘‘incor-
rect’’, 1‘‘partly correct’’, or 2‘‘fully correct’’.
%E
0.8
0.8
1.4
0.7
0.7
Participants next indicated their general emo-
tional well-being (‘‘In general, how would you rate
Older participants
your emotional well-being?’’; response options: 1
‘‘distressed’’ to 5‘‘excellent’’) and their general
SD
54
64
57
60
59
physical health (‘‘In general, how would you rate
your health and physical well-being?’’; response
options: 1‘‘poor’’ to 5‘‘excellent’’). They also 721
734
738
722
724
RT
worked on the Digit-Symbol-Substitution test

Easy trials
(Wechsler, 1981; max score93) as a measure of

visual motor processing speed. In this task, each
%E
1.3
0.9
1.4
0.7
1.3
digit from 1 to 9 is assigned a sign and
participants are asked to enter the correct sign
Young participants
under each of the digits as quickly as possible.

Numbers of correctly entered signs are counted.
SD
71
66
70
70
68
Finally, participants rated the extent to which they

had felt distracted by the faces (‘‘Overall, how
much do you feel you were distracted by the faces?’’;
575
571
576
573
570
RT
response options: 1‘‘not distracted at all’’ to 5

‘‘very distracted’’), as well as what type of face (age
of face, facial expression) had been more distract-
ing (‘‘Which type of face was more distracting?’’;
Neutral faces
Happy faces
response options: young, old, no difference, and

Young faces
Angry faces
Older faces
happy, angry, neutral, no difference, respectively).

Stimulus
Test sessions typically took 40 minutes for young

participants and 50 minutes for older participants.

EBNER AND JOHNSON
Results and discussion Next, we examined whether both young and

older participants’ attention to a face-unrelated
Data preparation
task was more distracted by own-age as compared
As shown in Table 3, error rates were low.
to other-age faces, and whether young and older
Erroneous or null responses (5.7% of all trials)
participants were differentially distracted by happy,
and anticipatory (B300 ms) responses (0.2% of all
angry, and neutral faces. We conducted a 2 (Age
trials) were discarded from analyses. Of the
Group of Participant: young, older)2 (Age of
originally recruited 24 older adults, one older
Face: young, older)3 (Facial Expression: happy,
male participant and two older female participants
angry, neutral) repeated-measures ANOVA on
were only able to use their index finger for the
response times on the number task with Age of
responses which resulted in especially slow re-
Face and Facial Expression as within-subject
sponse times. One older participant declined to do
the task after the first few trials. All four variables and Age Group of Participant as be-
participants were excluded from analyses, which tween-subjects factor. Again, this analysis allowed
resulted in 20 older participants in the final exploration of the interaction between age and
sample. Preliminary analyses revealed no effect expression of the face in addition to investigation
of the two main effects. Because of the substantial
of gender of participant, no effect of gender of

face, and no interaction; all subsequent analyses difference in response times for easy versus difficult
were thereofore conducted across male and female trials as well as the interaction between Age Group
participants as well as male and female faces. of Participant and Difficulty Level, and to be
Again, alpha was set at .05 for all statistical consistent with Experiment 1, we again conducted
tests. analyses separately for easy and difficult trials.
Interference as a function of type of face Easy trials. With respect to easy trials, the main
First, to explore whether young and older parti- effects for Age Group of Participant, F(1, 50)
cipants differed in their overall task performance 68.73, pB.0001, h2p .58, and for Facial Expres-
independent of the type of face (age, facial sion, Wilks’ l0.81, F(2, 49)5.51, p.007,
expression) presented, we conducted a 2 (Age h2p .19, and the Age of FaceAge Group of
Group of Participant: young, older)2 (Trial Participant interaction, Wilks’ l0.86, F(1,
Difficulty: easy, difficult) repeated-measures AN- 50)7.76, p.008, h2p .14, were significant.
OVA on response times on the number task with All other effects were not significant: main effect
Trial Difficulty as the within-subject factor and for Age of Face, Wilks’ l0.96, F(1, 50)2.01,
Age Group of Participant as between-subjects p.16, h2p .04, Facial ExpressionAge Group
factor. The main effects for Age Group of of Participant interaction, Wilks’ l0.93, F(2,
Participant, F(1, 50)104.31, pB.0001, h2p 49)1.84, p.17, h2p .07, Age of Face
.68, and Trial Difficulty, Wilks’ l0.05, F(1, Facial Expression interaction, Wilks’ l0.98,
50)906.95, pB.0001, h2p .95, and their inter- F(2, 49)0.39, p.68, h2p .02, and Age of
action, Wilks’ l0.69, F(1, 50)22.03, pB FaceFacial ExpressionAge Group of Parti-
.0001, h2p .31, were significant. Older partici- cipant interaction, Wilks’ l1.00, F(2, 49)
pants (MO 839 ms, SD58) were slower in 0.03, p.97, h2p .00.
their responses on the MSIT than young partici- To examine the effect of age of face in young
pants (MY 654, SD71). Furthermore, both and older participants for easy trials, we followed
age groups, but especially older participants, up on the significant Age of FaceParticipant
responded more slowly to difficult (MY 735, Age Group interaction in repeated-measures
SD73; MO 949, SD57) than to easy trials ANOVAs on response times with Age of Face
(MY 573, SD68; MO 728, SD58). as a within-subject variable separately for young

and older participants. The analyses showed that the greater distraction from happy than angry and
the main effect for Age of Face was only neutral faces was driven by older participants.
significant in older participants, t(19) 2.25,
p.04, but not in young participants, t(31) Difficult trials. For difficult trials, there was a
1.27, p.21; see Table 3. In line with our main effect for Age Group of Participant, F(1,
predictions, older participants responded slower 50)119.22, pB.0001, h2p .71, and an Age of
to the number task when older compared to FaceFacial ExpressionAge Group of Parti-
young faces were presented in the background. cipant three-way interaction, Wilks’ l0.87,
Consistent with Experiment 1, there was no F(2, 49)3.72, p.03, h2p .13. All other
significant effect for young participants for easy effects did not reach significance: main effect for
trials. Age of Face, Wilks’ l0.96, F(1, 50)2.11,
We then investigated which facial expression p.15, h2p .04, main effect for Facial Expres-
was more distracting for easy trials: First, we sion, Wilks’ l0.99, F(2, 49)0.25, p.78,
2
conducted paired-samples t-tests that tested mean /h .01, Age of FaceAge Group of Participant
p
differences in response times in each of the pairs interaction, Wilks’ l1.00, F(1, 50)0.06, p
of facial expressions (happyangry, happyneutral, .80, h2p .00, Facial ExpressionAge Group of
angryneutral), collapsed across young and older Participant interaction, Wilks’ l0.96, F(2,
faces and young and older participants. Partici- 49)1.07, p.35, h2p .04, and Age of Face
pants overall gave slower responses when happy Facial Expression interaction, Wilks’ l0.99,
than when angry, t(51)2.61, p.01, or neutral F(2, 49)0.32, p.73, h2p .01.
faces, t(51)2.64, p.01, appeared in the back- To better understand the significant three-way
ground; response times were not different for interaction, that is, how age of the face interacted
angry and neutral faces, t(51)0.16, p.87. To with expression of the face in young and older
test our hypothesis that young participants were participants, we conducted repeated-measures
more distracted by angry faces than happy faces, ANOVAs on response times with Age of Face
whereas older participants were more distracted and Facial Expression as within-subject variables
by happy faces than angry faces, we then exam- separately for young and older participants. Re-
ined separately for young and older participants sults are presented in Table 3 and Figure 2. None
which facial expression was more distracting (even of the main effects were significant in young or
though the Facial ExpressionAge Group of older participants: main effect for Age of Face,
Participant interaction was not significant). We Wilks’ l0.96, F(1, 31)1.30, p.26, h2p
conducted paired-samples t-tests that tested mean .04; Wilks’ l0.96, F(1, 19)0.80, p.38,
2
differences in response times in each of the pairs /h .04, respectively, and main effect for Facial
p
of facial expressions, collapsed across young and Expression, Wilks’ l0.93, F(2, 30)1.19, p
older faces. As presented in Table 3, confirming .32, h2p .07; Wilks’ l0.95, F(2, 18)0.43,
our predictions, older participants gave slower p.66, h2p .05, respectively. The Age of
responses when happy than when angry, t(19) FaceFacial Expression interaction was signifi-
3.45, p.003, or neutral, t(19)2.60, p.02, cant in young participants, Wilks’ l0.79, F(2,
faces appeared in the background; older partici- 30)3.92, p.03, h2p .21, but not in older
pants’ response times were not different for angry participants, Wilks’ l0.91, F(2, 18)0.84, p
and neutral faces, t(19) 0.51, p.61. In line .45, h2p .09.
with Experiment 1, there were no significant Following-up on this significant interaction in
effects for young participants in easy trials: happy young participants, we compared response times
versus angry, t(31)0.90, p.37, happy versus on difficult trials with young and older back-
neutral, t(31)1.38, p.18, and angry versus ground faces separately for happy, angry, and
neutral, t(31)0.58, p.57. This showed that neutral expressions: Different from Experiment 1,

EBNER AND JOHNSON
(A) Happy Faces

Young Happy Faces Older Happy Faces
1000
950
900
Response Time (ms)

850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
Young Participants Older Participants
(B) Angry Faces

Young Angry Faces Older Angry Faces
1000
950
Response Time (ms)
900
850 *
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
(C) Neutral Faces Young Neutral Faces Older Neutral Faces

1000
950
900
Response Time (ms)
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
Figure 2. Difficult trials from Experiment 2. Note: Error bars represent standard errors of the condition mean differences. *p B.05.
young participants’ responses to difficult trials to angry older faces (M723 ms, SD80);
were only significantly slowed down by angry t(31)2.58, p.02, but there were no significant
young faces (M742 ms, SD84) as compared differences between young and older faces for

happy, t(31) 1.68, p.10, or neutral expres- simultaneously. Thus, in Experiment 1 there was
sions, t(31)1.23, p.23.3 an opportunity for face processing (including
processing of age and facial expression) to begin
before the number task initiated task-relevant
Summary
We found several differences between young and processing. In Experiment 2, focus on processing
older participants: As predicted, older participants the number task from the beginning of the trial
responded slower to easy number trials when older may have reduced interference from the faces for
compared to young faces appeared in the back- all but the most salient combinations of features
ground. In addition, although the interaction of for young adults, namely young, angry faces.
Facial Expression by Age Group of Participant It is important to note that, consistent across
was not significant, which might be explained by Experiments 1 and 2, young participants only
the differential impact task difficulty had on showed effects in response time on difficult trials,
young and older participants’ face interference, whereas older participants only showed effects in
subsequent planned comparisons indicated that, response time on easy trials. One explanation for
in line with our predictions, older participants this finding refers to age-group differences in
gave slower responses on easy number trials with overall task performance (independent of age and
happy as compared to angry or neutral faces in the expression of the presented faces) as found in
background. Young participants’ responses on Experiment 2.4 It seems likely that because easy
difficult number trials, in contrast, were slowed trials were so easy for young participants, young
down by young compared to older faces. It is participants might have been able to also attend to
important to note, however, that, different from the faces without being distracted by them (or
Experiment 1, this own-age interference effect in attended to them after completing the easy
young participants’ responses on difficult number number task). Only for difficult trials was the
trials held only for angry but not for happy or task difficult enough to be sensitive to competi-
neutral faces. That is, there was a significant Age tion from distraction. For older participants, in
of FaceFacial Expression interaction for young contrast, the difficult trials may have been so
participants but no significant main effects, difficult (note in Table 3 that older participants’
suggesting that only the combination of an own- mean response times in difficult trials were close
age face with an angry facial expression was to the 1000 ms stimulus presentation time) that
effective in distracting young participants’ atten- the task was not sensitive to added competition.
tion from the face-unrelated primary task in Our findings therefore suggest that the ability to
Experiment 2. detect differential distraction as a function of the
Thus, Experiments 1 and 2 produced some- type of face (age, facial expression) in young and
what different findings for young participants. older participants was influenced by the overall
One possible explanation is that slightly different difficulty of the face-unrelated primary task. Lavie
versions of the MSIT task were administered in (1995, 2000) has suggested that depending on the
the two experiments. In Experiment 1, the face level of attentional load of a primary task,
appeared 100 ms before the numbers, whereas in distracters are either excluded from attention or
Experiment 2, face and numbers were presented are perceived. Furthermore, available evidence
3
In Experiment 2 we found little participant insight into face-interference effects. The majority of both age groups reported no
difference in distraction by young and older faces and no difference in interference from happy, angry, or neutral faces. Some of the
young participants reported more interference from angry than happy or neutral faces.
4
To our knowledge, the present study is the first that examined age-group differences on the MSIT. It shows that young and
especially older participants responded more slowly on difficult than on easy trials. Note, however, that we shortened the stimulus
presentation time (1000 ms instead of 1750 ms in the original version of the task; Bush et al., 2003) and added faces as an additional
potential source of interference.

EBNER AND JOHNSON
suggests that increases in task load differentially Vuilleumier, & Eimer, 2003; Pessoa, McKenna,
affect distracter interference in older compared to Guiterrez, & Ungerleider, 2002) resulting in
young adults (Maylor & Lavie, 1998). Thus, our delayed response to non-face targets (Koster,
findings not only suggest that young and older Verschuere, Burssens, Custers, & Crombez,
adults are differentially distracted by young and 2007). This interference effect is typically ex-
older faces, respectively, but that this effect is plained by the idea that faces contain and convey
influenced by the extent to which the primary task crucial social information, for example familiarity
taxes attention in young and older adults. and emotional expression, and therefore consti-
tute highly relevant biological and social stimuli
that influence attentional processing.
GENERAL DISCUSSION Of course, further work that includes a non-
face distracting background condition would be
In integrating evidence on age-group differences necessary to conclude that this overall interference
in selective attention to, and interference from, effect from faces in young adults is greater for
faces with different facial expressions and effects faces than for non-face distracters (e.g., geome-
of an own-age bias in face processing, the present trical shapes, musical instruments or appliances)
study produced three novel findings: in the present task. Furthermore, the present
study does not disentangle whether face-inter-
1. task-irrelevant, to-be-ignored faces of
ference effects are due to faces capturing attention
young and older individuals with happy,
more readily or holding attention longer than
angry, and neutral expressions distracted
distracting non-face stimuli (Bindemann, Burton,
attention from a face-unrelated primary
Hooge, Jenkins, & de Haan, 2005; Koster et al.,
task;
2004). It would be interesting to further separate
2. interference from faces varied for the dif-
these two processes in future studies and to also
ferent types of faces (age of face, expression
examine possible age-group differences therein. In
of face); and
addition, future developmental studies, linking
3. young and older adults showed different
changes in performance with neural development,
face-interference effects.
may be particularly useful in further understand-
Next, we discuss these findings and their ing how attention and face processing interact.
implications. Nevertheless, as discussed below, our findings
clearly show differential attentional effects as a
function of the age and the expression of the face
Faces distract attention
as well as the age of the perceiver.
As expected, Experiment 1 found interference
from faces in young adults. That is, relative to no
Greater interference from own-age faces
faces, to-be-ignored faces that appeared in the
background interfered with performance in diffi- The results in terms of differences in interference
cult trials of a face-unrelated primary task. This from faces of different ages were largely in line
finding is consistent with evidence that faces with our predictions and with the literature on the
engage and hold attention even when task own-age effect in face processing (Anastasi &
irrelevant or task distracting (see Palermo & Rhodes, 2006; Bäckman, 1991; Lamont et al.,
Rhodes, 2007, for a review). Studies have shown 2005). Experiment 1 found an own-age face-
that even very brief presentations of distracter interference effect for young participants, in that
faces are sufficient to attract attention (Koster, they were more distracted by young than by older
Crombez, Van Damme, Verschuere, & De faces during difficult trials of a face-unrelated
Houwer, 2004) and only a minimal degree of task. This own-age effect for young participants in
attention is required for processing faces (Holmes, response to difficult trials was also found in

Experiment 2 but only held for angry but not Öhman & Mineka, 2001) and that processing
happy or neutral faces. A possible explanation for information related to threat or danger is highly
these differences between the two experiments is prioritised and proceeds relatively automatically,
discussed above. Experiment 2 furthermore found even when the source of threat is unattended or
an own-age face-interference effect in older presented outside of explicit awareness (Mogg &
participants in that they responded slower to the Bradley, 1999; Morris et al., 1998; Vuilleumier &
number task on easy trials when older compared Schwartz, 2001; Whalen et al., 1998), and that
to young faces were presented in the background. processing threat-related information may be
Research on the own-age bias in face proces- mediated by specialised neural circuitry (Adolphs,
sing typically explains better memory for faces Tranel, & Damasio, 1998; Esteves, Dimberg, &
from the own as opposed to other age groups in Öhman, 1994; Morris et al., 1999). However, it is
terms of frequency of contact, and thus familiarity important to note that Experiment 2 did not
people have with own- compared to other-age replicate this stronger interference from angry
faces (Bartlett & Fulton, 1991). Different daily over happy faces in young adults. As discussed
routines and different environmental settings of above, differences between the two task versions
young and older adults likely lead to more administered in Experiments 1 and 2 offer an
frequent encounters with same age individuals. explanation. Future studies will have to follow up
Indeed, both young and older adults report more on this explanation and examine conditions under
frequent contact with persons of their own as which the age and the expression of a face interact,
opposed to the other age group, and this is related conjointly signal social and/or self-referential sig-
to how well participants are able to identify facial nificance, and consequently distract attention.
expressions of, and remember, young and older Regarding differences between young and
faces (Ebner & Johnson, 2009). This finding may older adults, planned subsequent comparisons
reflect ‘‘expertise’’ maintained during daily contact showed that, as predicted, older but not young
or motivational factors (e.g., faces of one’s own participants were more distracted by happy than
age group are more likely to represent potential angry or neutral faces on easy trials. Differences in
interaction partners). As the present study did not face interference between young and older parti-
address these potentially underlying factors, the cipants clearly indicate that perceptual features of
influences of familiarity, frequency of contact, and faces with different expressions such as, for
motivational salience on interference effects of example, open versus closed mouth or lines of
faces of different ages remain to be further eyebrows did not explain why the faces were
determined in future research. differentially distracting. Rather, the results sug-
gest that, in line with the literature, age-related
shifts in interest, age-related differences in sal-
Differential interference depending on facial
ience of different emotions, and increased moti-
expression
vational orientation toward positive over negative
In line with our predictions, young participants’ information with increasing age might have
performance on difficult trials in Experiment 1 played a role (Allard & Isaacowitz, 2008; Car-
suffered more from angry than happy background stensen & Mikels, 2005; Isaacowitz et al., 2006b;
faces. This finding is consistent with evidence Mather & Carstensen, 2005).
suggesting that negative*particularly angry and Given its obvious survival value, the direction
fearful faces*distract attention more readily than of attention to imminent threat or danger as a
neutral or happy faces in young adults (see Palermo phylogenetically old mechanism should be present
& Rhodes, 2007, for a review). This effect is often and strong at all ages (Mathews & Mackintosh,
explained from an evolutionary standpoint that it is 1998) and, indeed, some studies showed that, like
adaptive to preferentially attend to threat-related, young adults, older adults are able to rapidly
potentially harmful stimuli (LeDoux, 1998; detect angry faces (Hahn et al., 2006; Mather &

EBNER AND JOHNSON
Knight, 2006). Hahn et al., however, also found which may not only adversely affect their ability to
that older adults are better able to disengage from identify angry faces but may also explain less
angry than from happy or neutral faces. Com- interference from angry than happy faces found in
bined with evidence of preferential attention away the present study. Age-group differences in visual
from negative toward positive information in scan patterns of faces of different ages and with
older adults (Carstensen & Mikels, 2005; Mather different expressions need to be further explored in
& Carstensen, 2005), older adults’ stronger inter- future research.
ference from happy compared to angry faces It is important to note that in the present
found in the present study seems to reflect study, we focused on the investigation of inter-
improved disengagement from, or suppression ference effects from young or older faces with
of, negative information. (Note, however, that either happy, angry, or neutral expressions. Re-
the present study does not allow disentangling of sults of the present study can therefore not be
engagement of attention from disengagement of generalised to other positive or negative facial
attention.) Further supporting this assumption, expressions, such as surprise, fear, or disgust. Also,
there is neuropsychological evidence suggesting the present study only used Caucasian faces and
that older compared to young adults engage more did not systematically vary ethnicity of perceivers.
controlled attentional processing when respond- Therefore, it remains for future studies to examine
ing to threat-related facial expressions, recruiting interference from young and older emotional faces
prefrontal and parietal pathways (Gunning-Dixon of different races and in interaction with young
et al., 2003; Iidaka et al., 2002). and older perceivers of different ethnicities.
Another explanation for the age-group differ- In conclusion, to our knowledge, the present
ences stems from evidence that anger is a more study is the first to investigate interference from
difficult emotion to categorise compared to faces of different ages and with different facial
happiness, especially for older adults. This might expressions in young and older adults. It shows
then be reflected in reduced attention to anger as that task-irrelevant faces of young and older
it is not quickly and accurately detected as such. individuals with happy, angry, and neutral expres-
Ruffman, Sullivan, and Edge (2006), for instance, sions disrupt performance on a face-unrelated
found that older adults did not distinguish task, that face interference differs as a function
between high- and low-danger faces to the same of the age and the expression of the face, and that
extent as did young adults. There is also evidence young and older adults differ in this regard. There
showing that older adults have greater difficulty are various potential implications of the present
recognising almost all negative facial expressions findings. For example, stronger interference from
than young adults (Calder et al., 2003; Ebner & own-age as compared to other-age faces makes
Johnson, 2009; Moreno, Borod, Welkowitz, & individuals more likely to attend and respond to
Alpert, 1993; Phillips, MacLean, & Allen, 2002; social signals from members of their own age
see Ruffman et al., 2008, for a review). group and render them more likely social inter-
Moreover, age-group differences in visual scan action partners, whereas opportunities for social
patterns of emotional faces may offer explanations interaction with other age groups might be
for the age-group differences in face interference. missed. Note that participants’ self-reports sug-
For example, there is indication that successful gest that individuals sometimes have limited
identification of happiness is associated with view- insight into face-interference effects and that
ing the lower half of a face, whereas successful these attention biases may be largely outside of
identification of anger is associated with examining conscious awareness. In addition, age-group dif-
the upper half of a face (Calder, Young, Keane, & ferences in face interference might also help
Dean, 2000). Furthermore, compared with young explain why young and older adults differ in the
adults, older adults fixate less on top halves of faces type of information they are most likely to
(Wong, Cronin-Golomb, & Neargarder, 2005), remember (Grady, Hongwanishkul, Keightley,

Lee, & Hasher, 2007; Leigland, Schulz, & Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1998). In the eye of the beholder:
Janowsky, 2004; Mather & Carstensen, 2003), The science of face perception. Oxford, UK: Oxford
as information that captures attention more read- University Press.
ily or holds it longer is more likely to be stored in, Bush, G., & Shin, L. M. (2006). The Multi-Source
Interference Task: An fMRI task that reliably
and later revived from, memory. Finally, the
activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/at-
findings pertaining to differences in interference
tention network. Nature Protocols, 1, 308313.
effects as a function of the level of difficulty of the Bush, G., Shin, L. M., Holmes, J., Rosen, B. R., &
primary task highlight the possibility that detect- Vogt, B. A. (2003). The Multi-Source Interference
ing differences in the salience of distracting Task: Validation study with fMRI in individual
stimuli depends on the attentional demands of subjects. Molecular Psychiatry, 8, 6070.
the primary task (Lavie, 2005), which seem to Calder, A. J., Keane, J., Manlya, T., Sprengelmeyer, R.,
vary between young and older adults in ways that Scott, S., Nimmo-Smith, I., et al. (2003). Facial
may mask systematic effects of the type of expression recognition across the adult life span.
distracter. Neuropsychologia, 41, 195202.
Calder, A. J., Young, A. W., Keane, J., & Dean, M.
Manuscript received 6 November 2008
(2000). Configural information in facial expression
Revised manuscript received 30 April 2009 perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Hu-
Manuscript accepted 18 June 2009 man Perception and Performance, 26, 527551.
First published online 24 August 2009 Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T.
(1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socio-
emotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165
181.
Carstensen, L. L., & Mikels, J. A. (2005). At the
intersection of emotion and cognition: Aging and
REFERENCES the positivity effect. Current Directions in Psycholo-
gical Science, 14, 117121.
Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1998). The Compton, R. (2003). The interface between emotion
human amygdala in social judgment. Nature, 393, and attention: A review of evidence from psychology
470474. and neuroscience. Behavioral and Cognitive Neu-
Allard, E. S., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2008). Are roscience Reviews, 2, 115129.
preferences in emotional processing affected by Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of
distraction? Examining the age-related positivity goal-directed and stimulus driven attention in the
effect in visual fixation within a dual-task paradigm. brain. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 3, 201215.
Aging, Neuropsychology. Cognition, 15, 725743. Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L.,
Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2006). Evidence for Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2004).
an own-age bias in face recognition. North American Separable neural components in the processing of
Journal of Psychology, 8, 237252. black and white faces. Psychological Science, 15, 806
Bäckman, L. (1991). Recognition memory across the 813.
adult life span: The role of prior knowledge. Memory de Haan, E. H. F., Young, A. W., & Newcombe, F.
& Cognition, 19, 6371. (1987). Faces interfere with name classification in a
Bartlett, J. C., & Fulton, A. (1991). Familiarity and prosopagnosic patient. Cortex, 23, 309316.
recognition of faces in old age. Memory & Cognition, Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechan-
19, 229238. isms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of
Bindemann, M., Burton, M., Hooge, I. T. C., Jenkins, Neuroscience, 18, 193222.
R., & De Haan, E. H. F. (2005). Faces retain Ebner, N. C., & Johnson, M. K. (2009). Young and
attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1048 older emotional faces: Are there age-group differ-
1053. ences in expression identification and memory?
Brown, V., Huey, D., & Findlay, J. M. (1997). Face Emotion, 9, 329339.
detection in peripheral vision: Do faces pop out? Ebner, N. C., Riediger, M., & Lindenberger, U.
Perception, 26, 15551570. (in press). FACES*A database of facial expressions

EBNER AND JOHNSON
in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory,
Development and Validation. Behavior Research comprehension, and aging: A review and a new
Methods. view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of
Engell, A. D., Haxby, J. V., & Todorov, A. (2007). learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193225).
Implicit trustworthiness decisions: Automatic cod- San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
ing of face properties in human amygdala. Journal of Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2000).
Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 15081519. The distributed human neural system for face
Esteves, F., Dimberg, U., & .Öhman, A. (1994). perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 223233.
Automatically elicited fear: Conditioned skin con- Holmes, A., Vuilleumier, P., & Eimer, M. (2003). The
ductance responses to masked facial expressions. processing of emotional facial expression is gated by
Cognition and Emotion, 8, 393413. spatial attention: Evidence from event-related brain
Farah, M. J. (1996). Is face recognition ‘‘special’’? potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 174184.
Evidence from neuropsychology. Behavioural Brain Iidaka, T., Okada, T., Murata, T., Omori, M., Kosaka,
Research, 76, 181189. H., Sadato, N., et al. (2002). Age-related differences
Feinstein, J. S., Goldin, P. R., Stein, M. B., Brown, in the medial temporal lobe responses to emotional
G. G., & Paulus, M. P. (2002). Habituation of faces as revealed by fMRI. Hippocampus, 12, 352
attentional networks during emotion processing. 362.
NeuroReport, 13, 12551258. Isaacowitz, D. M., Wadlinger, H. A., Goren, D., &
Folstein, M. F, Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. Wilson, H. R. (2006a). Is there an age-related
(1975). Mini-mental State’’: A practical method for positivity effect in visual attention? A comparison of
grading the cognitive state of patients for the two methodologies. Emotion, 6, 511516.
clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189198. Isaacowitz, D. M., Wadlinger, H. A., Goren, D., &
Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Wilson, H. R. (2006b). Selective preference in visual
Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention fixation away from negative images in old age? An
in subclinical anxiety? Journal of Experimental Psy- eye-tracking study. Psychology and Aging, 21, 4048.
chology: General, 130, 681700. Jenkins, R., Burton, A. M., & Ellis, A. W. (2002).
Gauthier, I., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J. C., & Anderson, Long-term effects of covert face recognition. Cogni-
A. W. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits tion, 86, 4352.
brain areas involved in face recognition. Nature Johnson, M. H., Dziurawiec, S., Ellis, H. D., &
Neuroscience, 3, 191197. Morton, J. (1991). Newborns’ preferential tracking
Goren, C. C., Sarty, M., & Wu, P. Y. (1975). Visual of faces and its subsequent decline. Cognition, 40, 1
following and pattern discrimination of face-like 19.
stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics, 56, 544549. Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M.
Grady, C. L., Hongwanishkul, D., Keightley, M., Lee, (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human
W., & Hasher, L. (2007). The effect of age on extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception.
memory for emotional faces. Neuropsychology, 21, Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 43024311.
371380. Kastner, S., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2001). The neural
Gunning-Dixon, F. M., Gur, R. C., Perkins, A. C., basis of biased competition in human visual cortex.
Schroeder, L., Turner, T., Turetsky, B. I., et al. Neuropsychologia, 39, 12631276.
(2003). Age-related differences in brain activation Khurana, B., Smith, W. C., & Baker, M. T. (2000).
during emotional face processing. Neurobiology of Not to be and then to be: Visual representation of
Aging, 24, 285295. ignored unfamiliar faces. Journal of Experimental
Hahn, S., Carlson, C., Singer, S., & Gronlund, S. D. Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26,
(2006). Aging and visual search: Automatic and 246263.
controlled attentional bias to threat faces. Acta Knight, M., Seymour, T. L., Gaunt, J. T., Baker, C.,
Psychologica, 123, 312336. Nesmith, K., & Mather, M. (2007). Aging and
Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the goal-directed emotional attention: Distraction re-
face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. verses emotional biases. Emotion, 7, 705714.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S.,
917924. Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J. (2004). Does

imminent threat capture and hold attention? Emo- Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B. (1998). A cognitive
tion, 4, 312317. model of selective processing in anxiety. Cognitive
Koster, E. H. W., Verschuere, B., Burssens, B., Therapy and Research, 22, 539560.
Custers, R., & Crombez, G. (2007). Attention for Maylor, E. A., & Lavie, N. (1998). The influence of
emotional faces under restricted awareness revisited: perceptual load on age differences in selective
Do emotional faces automatically attract attention? attention. Psychology and Aging, 13, 563573.
Emotion, 7, 285295. Merikle, P., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2001).
Lamont, A. C., Stewart-Williams, S., & Podd, J. Perception without awareness: Perspectives from
(2005). Face recognition and aging: Effects of target cognitive psychology. Cognition, 79, 115134.
age and memory load. Memory & Cognition, 33, Milders, M., Sahraie, A., Logan, S., & Donnellon, N.
10171024. (2006). Awareness of faces is modulated by their
Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary emotional meaning. Emotion, 6, 1017.
condition for selective attention. Journal of Experi- Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative
mental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor- theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review
mance, 21, 451468. of Neuroscience, 24, 167202.
Lavie, N. (2000). Selective attention and cognitive Mogg, D., & Bradley, B. P. (1999). Orienting of
control: Dissociating attentional functions through attention to threatening facial expressions presented
different types of load. In S. Monsell & J. Driver under conditions of restricted awareness. Cognition
(Eds.), Control of cognitive processes. Attention and and Emotion, 13, 713740.
performance (Vol. XVIII, pp. 175194). Cambridge, Moreno, C., Borod, J., Welkowitz, J., & Alpert, M.
MA: MIT Press. (1993). The perception of facial emotion across the
Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective adult life span. Developmental Neuropsychology, 9,
attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 305319.
7582. Morris, J. S., .Öhman, A., & Dolan, R. J. (1998).
Lavie, N., Ro, T., & Russell, C. (2003). The role of Conscious and unconscious emotional learning in
perceptual load in processing distractor faces. Psy- the human amygdala. Nature, 393, 467470.
chological Science, 14, 510515. Morris, J. S., .Öhman, A., & Dolan, R. J. (1999).
LeDoux, J. E. (1998). Fear and the brain: Where we A subcortical pathway to the right amygdala
have been, and where are we going? Biological mediating ‘‘unseen’’ fear. Proceedings of the National
Psychiatry, 44, 12291238. Academy of Science, 96, 16801685.
Leigland, L. A., Schulz, L. E., & Janowsky, J. S. .Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Lundqvist, D. (2000).
(2004). Age related changes in emotional memory. Unconscious emotion: Evolutionary perspectives,
Neurobiology of Aging, 25, 11171124. psychophysiological data, and neuropsychological
Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. mechanisms. In R. D. Lane & L. Nadel (Eds.),
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cognitive neuroscience of emotion (pp. 296327). New
Mason, S. E. (1986). Age and gender as factors in facial York: Oxford University Press.
recognition and identification. Experimental Aging .Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. (2001). The
Research, 12, 151154. face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social
attentional biases for emotional faces. Psychological Psychology, 80, 381396.
Science, 14, 409415. .Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and
motivated cognition: The positivity effect in atten- fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483522.
tion and memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, Palermo, R., & Rhodes, G. (2007). Are you always on
496502. my mind? A review of how face perception and
Mather, M., & Knight, M. R. (2006). Angry faces get attention interact. Neuropsychologia, 45, 7592.
noticed quickly: Threat detection is not impaired Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age
among older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series B: differences in unconscious transference: Source
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61, P54 confusion or identity blending? Memory & Cogni-
P57. tion, 31, 570580.

EBNER AND JOHNSON
Perrett, D. I., Hietanen, J. K., Oram, M. W., & processing and memory. Psychology and Aging, 21,
Benson, P. J. (1992). Organization and functions of 821825.
cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex. van Honk, J., Tuiten, A., de Hann, E. H. F., van den
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Hout, M., & Stam, H. (2001). Attentional biases
Biological Sciences, 335, 2330. for angry faces: Relationships to trait anger and
Pessoa, L., McKenna, M., Guiterrez, E., & Ungerlei- anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 279297.
der, L. G. (2002). Neural processing of facial Vuilleumier, P. (2000). Faces call for attention: Evi-
expressions requires attention. Proceedings of the dence from patients with visual extinction. Neurop-
National Academy of Science, 99, 1145811463. sychologia, 38, 693700.
Phillips, L. H., MacLean, R. D. J., & Allen, R. (2002). Vuilleumier, P. (2002). Facial expression and selective
Age and the understanding of emotions: Neuropsy- attention. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 15, 291
chological and sociocognitive perspectives. Journal of 300.
Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P526P530. Vuilleumier, P., & Schwartz, S. (2001). Emotional
Pourtois, G., Grandjean, D., Sander, D., & Vuilleu- facial expressions capture attention. Neurology, 56,
mier, P. (2004). Electrophysiological correlates of 153158.
rapid spatial orienting towards fearful faces. Cerebral Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).
Cortex, 14, 619633. Development and validation of brief measures of
Puce, A., Allison, T., Asgari, M., Gore, J. C., & positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
McCarthy, G. (1996). Differential sensitivity of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063
human visual cortex to faces, letter strings, and 1070.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult
textures: A functional magnetic resonance imaging
Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R). New York:
study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 52055215.
Psychological Corporation.
Ro, T., Russell, C., & Lavie, N. (2001). Changing
Whalen, P. J., Rauch, S. L., Etcoff, N. L., McInerney,
faces: A detection advantage in the flicker paradigm.
S. C., Lee, M. B., & Jenike, M. A. (1998). Masked
Psychological Science, 12, 9499.
presentations of emotional facial expressions mod-
Ruffman, T., Henry, J. D., Livingstone, V., & Phillips,
ulates amygdala activity without explicit knowledge.
L. H. (2008). A meta-analytic review of emotion
Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 411418.
recognition and aging: Implications for neuropsy-
Whalen, P. J., Shin, L. M., McInerney, S. C., Fischer,
chological models of aging. Neuroscience and Biobe- H., Wright, C. I., & Rauch, S. L. (2001).
havioral Reviews, 32, 863881. A functional MRI study of amygdala responses to
Ruffman, T., Sullivan, S., & Edge, N. (2006). Differ- facial expressions of fear versus anger. Emotion, 1,
ences in the way older and younger adults rate threat 7083.
in faces but not situations. Journal of Gerontology: White, M. (1995). Preattentive analysis of facial
Psychological Sciences, 61B, P187P194. expressions of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 9,
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). 439460.
E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Wong, B., Cronin-Golomb, A., & Neargarder, S.
Software Tools Inc. (2005). Patterns of visual scanning as predictors of
Schupp, H. T., .Öhman, A., Junghöfer, M., Weike, emotion identification in normal aging. Neuropsy-
A. I., Stickburger, J., & Hamm, A. O. (2004). The chology, 19, 739749.
facilitated processing of threatening faces. Emotion, Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences
4, 189200. in lineup identification accuracy: People are better
Sergent, K., & Signoret, J.-L. (1992). Implicit access to with their own age. Law and Human Behavior, 26,
knowledge derived from unrecognised faces in 641654.
prosopagnosia. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 389400. Yantis, S. (1998). Control of visual attention. In H. E.
Sullivan, S., Ruffman, T., & Hutton, S. B. (2007). Age Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 223256). Hove, UK:
differences in emotion recognition skills and the Psychology Press.
visual scanning of emotion faces. Journal of Ger- Young, A. W., Ellis, A. W., Flude, B. M., McWeeney,
ontology: Psychological Sciences, 62B, P53P60. K. H., & Hay, D. C. (1986). FACEname inter-
Thomas, R. C., & Hasher, L. (2006). The influence of ference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
emotional valence on age differences in early Perception and Performance, 12, 466475.

Cognition & Emotion: Please Scroll Down For Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cognition & Emotion: Please Scroll Down For Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Ebner, Natalie C.

Cognition & Emotion

Age-group differences in interference from young and older emotional

Online publication date: 05 October 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Age-group differences in interference from young

Natalie C. Ebner and Marcia K. Johnson

Keywords: Interference; Attention bias; Own-age bias; Emotion; Facial expression.

1096 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1097

1098 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

expressions. 2007, for a review), we expected that young

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1099

EXPERIMENT 1 digits, two matching and one different (e.g., 100,

or neutral faces. number always matched its position on the

1100 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1101

Easy trials Difficult trials

Baseline trials 538 65 0.8 710 75 9.8

1102 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

Easy trials Difficult trials

Young faces 537 62 0.8 727 84 8.9

effects. Because of the substantial difference in Summary

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1103

better than older participants in visual motor

1104 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

(WAIS; Wechsler, 1981; max score30). In this

worked on the Digit-Symbol-Substitution test

(Wechsler, 1981; max score93) as a measure of

under each of the digits as quickly as possible.

Finally, participants rated the extent to which they

response options: 1‘‘not distracted at all’’ to 5

response options: young, old, no difference, and

happy, angry, neutral, no difference, respectively).

Test sessions typically took 40 minutes for young

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1105

Results and discussion Next, we examined whether both young and

of gender of participant, no effect of gender of

1106 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1107

(A) Happy Faces

Response Time (ms)

(B) Angry Faces

(C) Neutral Faces Young Neutral Faces Older Neutral Faces

1108 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1109

1110 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1111

1112 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1113

1114 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7) 1115

1116 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (7)

You might also like