The Impact of Worry on Attention to Threat

Prior research has often linked anxiety to attentional vigilance for threat using the dot probe task, which presents probes in spatial locations that were or were not preceded by a putative threat stimulus. The present study investigated the impact of worry on threat vigilance by administering this task during a worry condition and during a mental arithmetic control condition to 56 undergraduate students scoring in the low normal range on a measure of chronic worry. The worry induction was associated with faster responses than arithmetic to probes in the attended location following threat words, indicating the combined influence of worry and threat in facilitating attention. Within the worry condition, responses to probes in the attended location were faster for trials containing threat words than for trials with only neutral words, whereas the converse pattern was observed for responses to probes in the unattended location. This connection between worry states and attentional capture by threat may be central to understanding the impact of hypervigilance on information processing in anxiety and its disorders

Customer emotions in service failure and recovery encounters

Emotions play a significant role in the workplace, and considerable attention has been given to the study of employee emotions. Customers also play a central function in organizations, but much less is known about customer emotions. This chapter reviews the growing literature on customer emotions in employee–customer interfaces with a focus on service failure and recovery encounters, where emotions are heightened. It highlights emerging themes and key findings, addresses the measurement, modeling, and management of customer emotions, and identifies future research streams. Attention is given to emotional contagion, relationships between affective and cognitive processes, customer anger, customer rage, and individual differences

The only thing that can stop bad causal inference is good causal inference

In psychology, causal inference – both the transport from lab estimates to the real world and estimation on the basis of observational data – is often pursued in a casual manner. Underlying assumptions remain unarticulated; potential pitfalls are compiled in post-hoc lists of flaws. The field should move on to coherent frameworks of causal inference and generalizability that have been developed elsewhere