Security priming improves attentional processing to infant emotions among insecurely attached women: The different roles of supraliminal and subliminal priming

Journal Pre-proof Security priming improves attentional processing to infant emotions among insecurely attached women: The different roles of supraliminal and subliminal priming Yuanxiao Ma, Haijing Ma, Xu Chen PII:

S0028-3932(19)30260-X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107216

Reference:

NSY 107216

To appear in:

Neuropsychologia

Received Date: 16 July 2019 Revised Date:

22 September 2019

Accepted Date: 27 September 2019

Please cite this article as: Ma, Y., Ma, H., Chen, X., Security priming improves attentional processing to infant emotions among insecurely attached women: The different roles of supraliminal and subliminal priming, Neuropsychologia (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107216. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Author Contributions

Yuanxiao Ma and Xu Chen designed the research. Yuanxiao Ma and Haijing Ma performed the data analysis and wrote, reviewed, and approved the manuscript. Yuanxiao Ma and Xu Chen performed the data collection.

1

Security Priming Improves Attentional Processing to Infant Emotions among Insecurely Attached

2

Women: The Different Roles of Supraliminal and Subliminal Priming

3 4

Abstract: In two ERP experiments, we examined the attention-related mechanism involved in perceiving

5

infant emotions following exposure to security priming. Specifically, we examined how security priming

6

affected securely and insecurely attached women. We found that both supraliminal and subliminal security

7

priming resulted in increased attention allocation in anxiously and avoidantly attached women but had no

8

effect on securely attached women. Moreover, we also found that supraliminal and subliminal security

9

priming differed in their effectiveness in increasing attention allocation among anxiously and avoidantly

10

attached women. Supraliminal security priming were more effective for anxiously attached women,

11

whereas subliminal security priming were more effective for avoidantly attached women. The implications

12

of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

13

Key words: insecure attachment; security priming; attention function; boosting effect; event-related

14

potentials

15 16 17 18 19

1 Introduction Infants’ faces are perceived as cute and attractive, which is thought to increase adults’ motivation to

20

care for them (Hahn and Perrett, 2014; Glocker et al., 2009; Proverbio et al., 2011). This heightened

21

response to infants is concordant with evolutionary models, underscoring the need to direct resources to

22

the survival and well-being of our offspring. Thus, people’s ability to perceive infant expressions is

23

crucially important for infant survival and development across mammalian species (Swain et al., 2011).

24

With respect to infant caretaking, one important factor that is likely to account for differences in maternal

25

sensitivity to infant cues is individual differences in adult attachment (Strathearn et al., 2009; Lenzi et al.,

26

2013; Ma et al., 2017). Attachment theory holds that people’s attachment styles are determined by the

27

quality of emotional bonds that are established based on early experiences with primary caregivers

28

(Bowlby, 1969). For example, when infants experience physiological and psychological needs, they tend to

29

seek comfort and protection from their caregivers. If the caregivers respond sensitively and supportively,

30

then the infants are likely to develop a secure attachment. When infants’ need to seek proximity is not 1

1

reliably satisfied, these attachment experiences are internalized and may induce the formation of a negative

2

internal working model (IWM) about self or others (Bretherton and Munholland, 1999; Vrtička and

3

Vuilleumier, 2012), and insecure attachment is likely to develop.

4

According to previous studies, secure and insecure attachment are associated with different patterns of

5

attention to infant cues (Lenzi et al., 2015). Secure attachment may be related to higher attention sensitivity

6

in perceiving infant emotions, whereas insecure attachment was related to lower sensitivity in perceiving

7

infant emotions. For example, past research has found that insecurely attached mothers exhibited larger

8

N170 (an index of the configural processing of human faces; Eimer and Holmes, 2007) and smaller P3

9

amplitudes (an index of later controlled attention; Polich, 2007) to infant facial expressions than securely

10

attached mothers, especially in conditions with frequent negative infant emotions (Fraedrich et al., 2010;

11

Leyh et al., 2016). Moreover, our recent research further suggested that avoidantly attached nulliparous

12

women exhibited a lower N170 amplitude than anxiously attached nulliparous women and a smaller P3

13

amplitude than securely attached nulliparous women to all infant facial expressions (Ma et al., 2017).

14

These results indicated that insecurely attached women either devoted substantial attentional resources to

15

the configural features of infant emotions while ignoring the subsequent motivation attention or adopted

16

avoidant attention processing of infant emotions. Although fMRI findings can not be summarized as direct

17

evidence for a deficit in attentional processing because many brain regions are not particularly related to

18

attention, it is useful to explain the attentional processing deficit in insecure attachment as an indirect

19

evidence. Strathearn and colleagues (2009) found that securely attached mothers exhibited both increased

20

oxytocin release and greater activity in reward regions such as the ventral striatum and

21

hypothalamus/pituitary; avoidantly attached mothers showed enhanced insula activity in response to their

22

own infants’ sad faces. Another fMRI study also found that securely attached nulliparous women exhibited

23

greater activation in the perigenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC) and medial orbito-frontal cortex

24

(mOFC), while avoidantly attached nulliparous women deactivated the mOFC and pACC activation when

25

empathizing with infant faces (Lenzi et al., 2013). Indeed, a recent meta-analysis found high avoidance

26

attachment is associated with an inhibition processing (e.g., deactivation of left inferior frontal gyrus) for

27

emotional stimuli (Ran and Zhang, 2018). In addition, high anxiety attachment is related to great left

28

amygdala activation in response to emotional processing, they suggested this positive correlation may

29

indicates an increased vigilance to emotional stimuli in high anxiety attachment people. Accordingly, the

30

previous findings suggested that insecure attachment seems to involve a deficit in attentional processing, as 2

1 2

insecurely attached women allocated fewer attention resources to infant emotions. Nevertheless, although a person’s attachment style is regarded as relatively stable, it is also a

3

developing structure. As new attachment experiences are constantly internalized, people may change their

4

cognition and evaluation of previous attachment experiences to integrate new cognitive schemes about

5

their IWM based on environmental signals of social support (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007a, b; Sibley and

6

Overall, 2010; Carnelley and Rowe, 2007; Norman et al., 2014). Security priming are designed to make

7

secure attachment representations temporarily accessible via exposure to reminders of secure attachment,

8

which can then produce numerous positive effects that influence an individual’s perception, emotions, and

9

behaviors in ways that are similar to secure attachment (Gillath et al., 2008). Furthermore, the heuristic

10

model of attachment security priming developed by Mikulincer and Shaver (2007c) suggested that the

11

activation of security-related mental representations can spread to related feelings and self-representations,

12

thereby contributing to the activation of other behavioral systems, such as caregiving behavior, attention to

13

positive attributes, and reduced self-protective defenses. Given that a secure attachment style may produce

14

a buffer effect when people face social threats, one might expect that security priming could help improve

15

the attention processing deficit in insecure attachment.

16

An emerging body of research suggests that exposure to a secure intervention has boosting effects on

17

individuals’ perceptions, emotions, and behaviors (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007a; Gillath and Karantzas,

18

2018). For example, both supraliminal and subliminal security priming enhance feelings of security,

19

positive emotion and intimacy (Mikulincer et al., 2001; Rowe and Carnelley, 2003; Gillath and Shaver,

20

2007; Liao et al., 2017), in addition to leading to a higher degree of cognitive openness (Mikulincer and

21

Arad, 1999; Jarvinen and Paulus, 2017) and exploratory behavior (Green and Campbell, 2000). Meanwhile,

22

it reduces the impact of threatening stimuli (Sohlberg and Birgegard, 2003; Karremans et al., 2011; Pan,

23

Zhang, Liu, Ran, & Teng, 2017) and lowers characteristic defenses (Carnelley and Rowe, 2007;

24

Andriopoulos and Kafetsios, 2015). Specifically, with regard to insecure attachment, security priming

25

attenuate the tendency of anxiously attached individuals to report intense feelings of rejection and negative

26

emotions and avoidantly attached individuals to dismiss hurtful events and inhibit expressions of distress

27

(Cassidy et al., 2009; Shaver et al., 2009; Dutton et al., 2016; Pan et al., 2017; Bryant and Chan, 2017).

28

fMRI studies also provided converging evidence that security priming attenuate the activation of amygdala,

29

fusiform and occipital gyrus to social and linguistic threats in anxiously and avoidantly attached groups

30

and increase temporal gyrus and frontal gyrus activity related to positive emotion (Norman et al., 2014; 3

1

Tang et al., 2017). These critical findings reported in the research discussed above have contributed to our

2

understanding of the boosting effect of security priming by showing that exposure to a secure attachment

3

environment is associated with various positive outcomes in cognition, emotion and behavior. Inspired by

4

this notion, in this research, we attempted to examine whether security priming can improve attention

5

processing in insecurely attached individuals in relation to infant faces.

6

Although both supraliminal and subliminal security priming produce boosting effects (Shaver et al.,

7

2009; Cassidy et al., 2009), little is known about the applicability of each priming method (Gillath et al.,

8

2008). For example, proximity seeking is perceived as futile or even dangerous in avoidant attachment

9

because of the distress felt by failing to achieve proximity to an attachment figure (Vrtička and Vuilleumier,

10

2012). As a result, supraliminal security priming may not be suitable for avoidantly attached individuals

11

given the defensive reaction of such individuals to intimate attachment information. Indeed, the subliminal

12

approach is likely to be less subject to experimental demand characteristics and may attenuate the

13

defensive reaction of avoidantly attached individuals (Gillath and Shaver, 2007; Dewitte et al., 2007). As

14

evidence, the results of a meta-analysis of security priming suggests that supraliminal security priming are

15

not as effective because of defense mechanisms of avoidant attachment, but subliminal priming may be

16

able to bypass cognitive-affective defenses (Gillath and Karantzas, 2018). Thus, subliminal security

17

priming are likely a more targeted method for use with avoidantly attached individuals. However, previous

18

studies have not considered the characteristics of avoidant attachment to design specific security priming

19

that can impact the effects of security priming in insecure attachment. Therefore, it is crucial to examine

20

the boundary conditions of the effectiveness and applicability of each security priming method, which is

21

also in accordance with the perspective set forth in reviews of security priming (Gillath et al., 2008; Gillath

22

and Karantzas, 2018).

23

Focusing on the attention processing deficit to infant cues of insecure attachment, two ERP

24

experiments is designed to investigate the boosting effects of security priming on the attentional processing

25

of insecure attachment, on the one hand, and the effectiveness and applicability of subliminal and

26

supraliminal security priming in anxiously and avoidantly attached participants, on the other hand. The

27

time sensitivity of ERPs, which explore the specific psychological process reflected by different attention

28

processing stages, was the method of choice. Considering the attention processing deficit of insecure

29

attachment may occur at early selective attention and later controlled attention, present study mainly

30

focused on early ERP components (e.g., P1, N1, and P2) and later ERP components (P3). Our overall 4

1

hypothesis is that both subliminal and supraliminal security priming will have boosting effects on the

2

attention processing deficit in insecure attachment but may have different effectiveness and applicability. A

3

more specific hypothesis is presented in each experiment.

4

2 Experiment 1

5

In Experiment 1, we adopted a modified affective priming paradigm that supraliminally exposed

6

participants to pictures representing attachment security to create a sense of security similar to that evoked

7

by supportive attachment figures (Gillath et al., 2008). We hypothesized that supraliminal security priming

8

is a more effective method to improve attention processing to infant emotions in anxiously but not

9

avoidancely attached women. Considering previous research has found that the enhancement effect of

10

security priming might be less obvious among securely attached individuals (Shaver et al., 2009), we

11

assumed that security priming would not have a boosting effect in secure attachment. Given that the

12

supraliminal security priming effect on the evaluation of infant emotion may occur in both early and later

13

attention stages, we focused on the early P1, N1, P2 components and later P3 component. More

14

specifically, we assume that both early selective attention (P1, N1, P2) and later controlled attention (P3) to

15

infant emotions, especially for crying infant faces, will be elevated during supraliminal security priming in

16

anxiously attached women but that this boosting effect would not be found in securely and avoidancely

17

attached women.

18

2.1 Methods

19

2.1.1 Participants

20

Three hundred and thirty nulliparous female college students were recruited via online invitations to

21

complete the Chinese version of the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (Li and Kato, 2006). After

22

screening, the final sample consisted of sixty nulliparous women: 21 with avoidant attachment, 20 with

23

anxious attachment and 19 with secure attachment. All of these participants were healthy, right-handed,

24

and reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and none of them had a prior history of neurological or

25

psychiatric disorders.

26

The screening criteria (Chavis and Kisley, 2012; Zilber et al., 2007; Dan and Raz, 2012) were as

27

follows: ECR scores in the highest quartile for the attachment-anxiety dimension and the lowest quartile

28

for the attachment-avoidance dimension were assigned to the anxiously attached group; ECR scores in the

29

highest quartile for the attachment-avoidance dimension and the lowest quartile for the attachment-anxiety

30

dimension were assigned to the avoidantly attached group; and ECR scores in the lowest quartile for both 5

1

the attachment-avoidance and attachment-anxiety dimensions were assigned to the securely attached group

2

(see Table 1).

3 4 5

[Insert Table 1] 2.1.2 Ethics Statement The local university approved this study and the recruitment of participants (project name: attachment

6

priming and attention processing; protocol number: H18032). All of the participants provided written

7

informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki prior to their participation in the study.

8

All of the study methods were conducted in accordance with the approved guidelines.

9

2.1.3 Assessment of Attachment Styles

10

The Chinese version of the ECR was used in this experiment. The validity and reliability of this tool

11

have been consistently demonstrated in the Chinese population (Li and Kato, 2006). The avoidance

12

subscale of ECR includes an 18-item scale (α = 0.94) that reflects the avoidance of intimacy and

13

interdependence. The anxiety subscale of ECR includes an 18-item (α = 0.90) scale that reflects an

14

individual's concern about rejection and abandonment. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging

15

from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). As in Beck and Madresh’s research (2008), we

16

adopted a modified version of the ECR by changing the word “partner” to “others” and indicated in the

17

instructions that “others” included parents, romantic partners and close friends.

18

2.1.4 Materials and Procedure

19

The security priming condition included 128 pictures that depicted people engaging in caregiving

20

behaviors and enjoying close attachment relationships. These pictures were regarded as attachment-related,

21

as studies have found that security priming resulted in greater empathy than positive mood priming

22

(Mikulincer and Arad, 1999; Mallinckrodt, 2007). The neutral priming condition included 128 pictures that

23

depicted neutral non-attachment scenes. Security and neutral pictures were selected from the Attachment

24

Affect Picture System (AAPS, Liu et al., 2016), which was strictly evaluated along the dimensions of

25

valence, arousal, and attachment. Infant facial expressions included 64 black-and-white photographs of

26

crying and neutral faces of infants aged from 3 to 6 months, selected from the Chinese Infant Affective

27

Face Picture System (CIAFPS, Cheng et al., 2015). Each facial expression category was matched by

28

gender. The priming picture and infant facial expression picture were identical in size, background, spatial

29

frequency, contrast, and brightness. The priming picture was presented once, and the infant facial

30

expression picture was presented twice, resulting in 256 trials. Those trials were randomly divided into 6

1

four blocks of 64 trials each. The onset sequence of the four conditions was randomized across the trials.

2

The pictures were all presented centrally on the screen. Additionally, to check the security priming

3

manipulation (Pan et al., 2017), participants were asked to rate the security subscale in State Adult

4

Attachment Measure (SAAM) before and after the experimental tasks (Gillath et al., 2009). The Chinese

5

version of the SAAM was used in this experiment (Ma et al., 2012). The SAAM is a standard and

6

well-validated measure of attachment in adults, and its reliability and validity have been demonstrated

7

across different cultures (Gillath et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2012). This 21-item SAAM includes three

8

subscales assessing security (9 items), anxiety (5 items), and avoidance (7 items). Security is assessed by

9

items such as ‘‘If something went wrong right now I feel like I could depend on someone.’’ Each item is

10

rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). In the current

11

study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82 (pre-test), 0.87 (post-test).

12

The participants were seated in a quiet room approximately 70 cm from the computer screen and

13

instructed to try their best to avoid eye blinks and head movements. The experimental procedure was

14

programmed with E-Prime 2.0 software (Psychology Software Tools Inc., PA). Each trial started with a

15

500 ms black fixation followed by a white blank screen that ranged from 500 to 1000 ms. Next, a priming

16

picture (either neutral priming or security priming) was presented for 500 ms, and the participants were

17

instructed to passively view this priming picture. A white blank screen was then presented for 500-1000 ms,

18

followed by a 500 ms infant face (either neutral or crying). Participants were asked to observe the infant

19

face carefully and evaluate the emotion of the infant face without any response. The infant face was then

20

replaced by a 300-ms blank screen, which was followed by a black dot (see Figure 1). Participants were

21

required to press “F” with the left hand when the black dot followed a neutral infant face and to press “J”

22

with the right hand when the black dot followed a crying infant face. The black dot presentation was

23

terminated by pressing a key. The response hands were reversed for the other half of the blocks. Before the

24

formal experiment began, the participants practiced for ten trials to become familiar with the procedure.

25 26

[Insert Figure 1] 2.1.5 ERP Recording and Analysis

27

An electroencephalogram (EEG) was conducted and recorded using a BrainAmps system (Brain

28

Products, Munchen, Germany), which included 64 scalp sites according to the 10 to 20 system positions

29

with a reference at FCz (Herrmann et al., 2007), and a common average reference was recalculated.

30

Vertical electrooculograms (EOGs) were recorded via electrodes that were placed below the left and right 7

1

eyes, and horizontal EOGs were recorded from the left and right orbital rims. Electrode impedance was

2

maintained below 5 kΩ, and signals were amplified using a 0.01 to 100 Hz bandpass filter and

3

continuously sampled at 500 Hz/channel for off-line analysis. Trials contaminated with large artifacts

4

(peak-to-peak deflection exceeding 80 µV) were excluded from the averaging.

5

ERP averages were computed off-line. EEG activity was separately averaged for correct responses in

6

each condition. All EEG signals were re-referenced off-line to TP9 and TP10 (average mastoid reference).

7

The EEG data were digitally filtered using a 30 Hz low-pass filter and were epoched into a period of 1200

8

ms (200 ms baseline and 1000 ms post target stimuli onset). Based on previous studies (Luo et al., 2010;

9

Kanske et al., 2011; Amodio, 2010; Chen et al., 2015), N1 (100-140 ms) was analyzed at the F3/4, FC1/2

10

and FC3/4 electrode sites, P2 (150-190 ms) was analyzed at the F3/4, F5/6, FC3/4 and FC5/6 electrode

11

sites. Peak amplitudes and latencies of the N1 and P2 components were subjected to repeated-measures

12

ANOVA with the priming condition (neutral vs. secure), infant facial expression (neutral vs. crying), and

13

electrode location (right vs. left) as within-subject factors and attachment style (secure, anxious vs.

14

avoidant) as a between-subjects factor. Given the absence of a sharply defined peak, the P3 component

15

(300 to 550 ms) was observed and quantified as a mean amplitude at P1/2, P3/4, CP1/2 and CP3/4

16

electrode sites (Tacikowski and Nowicka, 2010; Ran et al., 2014). The mean amplitudes of P3 were

17

subjected to a repeated-measures ANOVA with the priming condition, infant facial expression, and

18

electrode location as within-subject factors and attachment style as a between-subjects factor. Frontal P1

19

was not found in Experiment 1, thus was not analyzed.

20

2.2 Results

21

2 .2.1 Behavioral Results

22

Manipulation check. A repeated-measures ANOVA of state-secure attachment (SSA) revealed no main

23

effect and interaction effect. To examine the supraliminal security priming effect more specifically, as a

24

supplementary analysis, a paired-sample T test was conducted to compare the difference between pre- and

25

post-test SSA in each attachment group. The paired-sample T test indicated that increases in SSA scores

26

from the pre- to the post-measures were found only in the case of anxious attachment (M = 4.67 to M =

27

4.85, t (19) = -2.44, p = 0.027). That is, secure attachment (M = 4.42 to M = 4.43, t (18) = -0.35, p > 0.1)

28

and avoidant attachment (M = 4.20 to M = 4.22, t (20) = -0.40, p > 0.1) revealed no such increases between

29

the pre- and the post-measures. Significant attachment-related effects were not found in the Reaction time

30

and Accuracy rates and therefore are not reported here. For details, please see supplementary 1. 8

1 2

2.2.2 ERP Results N1 effect. A repeated-measures ANOVA on the N1 peak amplitude revealed a significant main effect

3

of the priming condition (F (1, 57) = 4.49, p = 0.039, η2 = 0.073) and electrode location (F (1, 57) = 13.67,

4

p < 0.001, η2 = 0.193). Post hoc tests revealed that supraliminal security priming (M = -3.92 µV, 95% CI

5

[-4.56, -3.29]) elicited larger N1 amplitudes than did neutral priming (M = -3.60 µV, 95% CI [-4.15, -3.06]).

6

The amplitudes in the left-located electrodes (M = -3.93 µV, 95% CI [-4.50, -3.35]) were greater than those

7

in the right-located electrodes (M = -3.60 µV, 95% CI [-4.19, -3.02]).

8

More importantly, a three-way interaction effect among attachment style, priming condition and

9

electrode location reached significance (F (2, 57) = 5.05, p < 0.010, η2 = 0.151). Simple effects analyses

10

indicated that supraliminal security priming elevated the N1 amplitudes in response to both infant facial

11

expressions when compared to neutral priming in the left-located electrodes among anxiously attached

12

women (p = 0.013) and avoidantly attached women (p = 0.044). However, this effect was absent among

13

securely attached women (ps > 0.05, see Figure 2a and Table 2). Significant attachment-related effects

14

were not found for the N1 latency and therefore are not reported here. For details, please see

15

supplementary 1.

16

[Insert Table 2]

17

P2 effect. P2 latency revealed a significant main effect of the priming condition (F (1, 57) = 4.21, p =

18

0.045, η2 = 0.070) and infant facial expression (F (1, 57) = 79.27, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.586). Neutral priming

19

(M = 166.86 ms, 95% CI [164.49, 169.24]) elicited longer P2 latencies than did supraliminal security

20

priming (M = 165.95 ms, 95% CI [163.40, 168.50]), and crying infant faces (M = 168.70 ms, 95% CI

21

[166.20, 171.20]) elicited longer P2 latencies than did neutral infant faces (M = 164.11 ms, 95% CI

22

[161.66, 166.57]).

23

The interaction between attachment style, priming condition and electrode location was also

24

significant (F (2, 57) = 3.28, p = 0.045, η2 = 0.105). Simple effect analyses indicated that supraliminal

25

security priming (anxious: M = 164.65 ms, 95% CI [160.02, 169.28]; avoidant: M = 166.59 ms, 95% CI

26

[161.95, 171.22]) elicited shorter P2 latencies in response to both infant facial expressions than did neutral

27

priming (anxious: M = 166.33 ms, 95% CI [161.92, 170.73]; avoidant: M = 167.55 ms, 95% CI [163.15,

28

171.95]) in right-located electrodes among anxiously (p = 0.040) and avoidantly (p = 0.049) attached

29

women, whereas this effect was absent in securely attached women (ps > 0.05). Moreover, we also found a

30

significant four-way interaction of attachment style, priming condition, infant facial expression, and 9

1

electrode location (F (2, 57) = 6.28, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.183). Simple effect analysis revealed that

2

supraliminal security priming evoked shorter P2 latencies for crying infant faces than did neutral priming

3

in the right-located electrodes in anxiously attached women (p = 0.016), whereas this effect was not

4

observed for neutral infant faces (p > 0.05). However, significant P2 latency differences in response to

5

neutral or crying infant faces between neutral priming and security priming were not found in avoidantly

6

and securely attached women (ps > 0.1, see Figure 2a). Significant attachment-related effects were not

7

found for the P2 peak amplitude and therefore are not reported here. For details, please see supplementary

8

1.

9 10

[Insert Table 3] P3 effect. A repeated-measures ANOVA on the P3 mean amplitude revealed a significant interaction

11

between the priming condition and infant facial expression (F (1, 57) = 7.44, p = 0.008, η2 = 0.115) (Table

12

3). Simple effect analyses suggested that crying infant faces (M = 8.87 µV, 95% CI [7.90, 9.84]) evoked

13

larger P3 amplitudes than did neutral infant faces (M = 8.33 µV, 95% CI [7.41, 9.24], p = 0.020) in

14

supraliminal security priming, whereas no P3 amplitude difference was found between crying (M = 8.60

15

µV, 95% CI [7.59, 9.60]) and neutral infant faces (M = 8.72 µV, 95% CI [7.74, 9.70], p = 0.584) in neutral

16

priming.

17

More importantly, the four-way interaction between attachment style, priming condition, infant facial

18

expression, and location reached significance, F (2, 57) = 3.61, p = 0.033, η2 = 0.112. Simple effect

19

analyses indicated that P3 amplitudes evoked by crying infant faces were greater than those evoked by

20

neutral infant faces (p = 0.008) during supraliminal security priming over the right-located electrode in

21

anxiously attached women, whereas no difference was found in P3 amplitudes between neutral and crying

22

infant faces (p = 0.442) in neutral priming. There were no significant P3 amplitude differences between

23

neutral and crying infant faces in either priming condition within securely and avoidantly attached women

24

(ps > 0.05, see Figure 2b).

25 26

[Insert Figure 2] N1-P2 components are associated with early attention allocation. The N1 component is an index of

27

selective attention (Hillyard et al., 1998; Talsma and Woldorff, 2005). For example, N1 amplitudes are

28

enhanced for attended stimuli (Woldorff et al., 1993; Amodio, 2010) or threatening information

29

(Felmingham et al., 2003). The P2 component is sensitive to the emotional and motivational significance

30

of a face (Amodio, 2010; Schutter et al., 2004; Zhang, Ran, & Li, 2018). For instance, a faster P2 latency 10

1

and a greater P2 amplitudes was found in response to negative stimuli (Carretié et al., 2001; Eimer and

2

Holmes, 2002). The P3 component is involved in top-down control mechanisms that operate during the

3

later processing stages (Polich, 2007). The results of Experiment 1 indicated that supraliminal security

4

priming significantly elevated early selective attention (as reflected by N1-P2) and later controlled

5

attention (as reflected by P3) to infant emotions compared to neutral priming among anxiously and

6

avoidantly attached women. The behavioral results also converge with ERP findings showing that

7

supraliminal security priming increased state-secure attachment in insecure attachment. Therefore, we

8

suggest that supraliminal security priming improve the attention processing deficit in insecure attachment

9

because anxiously and avoidantly attached women exhibited elevated attentional allocation to perceiving

10

infant emotions. However, it should be noted that the boosting effect of supraliminal security priming is

11

not completely effective in avoidant attachment. First, the behavioral results suggest that no significant

12

difference was found in state attachment between pre- and post-measures in avoidantly attached women.

13

Second, the ERP data show similar results. For example, the results of the four-way interaction show that

14

supraliminal security priming did not evoke significantly shorter P2 latency to crying infant faces than

15

supraliminal neutral priming in avoidant attachment. In addition, relative to neutral priming, avoidantly

16

attached women did not show elevated P3 amplitudes to crying infant faces in supraliminal security

17

priming. Therefore, we speculate that supraliminal security priming are an effective way to improve the

18

attention processing deficit within insecure attachment, but supraliminal security priming are not effective

19

in avoidant attachment like anxious attachment.

20

3 Experiment 2

21

Although supraliminal security priming produced a boosting effect on the attention processing deficit

22

in insecure attachment, it should be noted that this boosting effect of supraliminal security priming may not

23

be as valid for avoidant attachment. However, subliminal security priming are thought to be less subject to

24

experimental demand characteristics and perhaps to attenuate the defensive reaction of avoidantly attached

25

individuals (Gillath and Shaver, 2007). To better account for the characteristics of avoidant attachment, in

26

Experiment 2, we adopted a masked priming paradigm to examine the boosting effect of subliminal

27

security priming that might contribute to the attention processing deficit in insecure attachment to infant

28

emotions, especially for avoidant attachment. We predict that subliminal security priming improve the

29

attention processing deficit in anxiously and avoidantly attached women to crying infant faces. In

30

particular, we hypothesize that subliminal security priming significantly enhance the early attention 11

1

allocation (P1, N1, P2) and later controlled attention (P3) to crying infant faces in insecure attachment,

2

especially for avoidant attachment, but that this boosting effect is not found in secure attachment.

3

3.1 Methods

4

3.1.1 Participants

5

Three hundred and fifty nulliparous female college students were recruited via online invitations to

6

complete the Chinese version of the ECR, which was a participant pool independent from the samples in

7

Experiments 1. After screening, the final sample consisted of sixty-three nulliparous women: 21 with

8

avoidant attachment, 20 with anxious attachment and 22 with secure attachment. The screening criteria is

9

the same as that in Experiment 1.

10 11 12 13

3.1.2 Ethics Statement The ethics statement is the same as that in Experiment 1. 3.1.3 Assessment of Attachment Styles The measurement of attachment style was the same as that in Experiment 1 (see Table 4).

14 15 16

[Insert Table 4] 3.1.4 Materials and Procedure The priming materials used for Experiment 2 were same as those used in Experiment 1, including 32

17

secure pictures and 32 neutral pictures. In addition, 64 black-and-white pictures, which were matched by

18

gender, depicted crying infants as the target stimuli. The crying infant faces are more central and prominent

19

in attention processing deficits of insecure attachment, as demonstrated by previous evidence (Fraedrich et

20

al., 2010; Lenzi et al., 2013; Leyh et al., 2016) and Experiment 1. Experiment 2 adopted a masked priming

21

paradigm in which masking stimuli were followed by priming stimuli (see Figure 3). The masking stimuli

22

were 20 pictures with black-and-white dot matrices that generated randomly. The forward- and

23

backward-masking stimuli consisted of 5 randomly selected pictures from 20 dot matrix pictures. Both the

24

priming stimuli and the target stimuli were presented twice, resulting in a total of 128 trials, which were

25

then divided into four blocks of 32 trials each. The onset sequence of the two priming conditions was

26

randomized across trials in each block, and all of the stimuli were presented centrally on the screen.

27

Each trial started with presentation of a black “+”. A single scene picture was presented briefly (17

28

ms), preceded and followed by masks consisting of 5 black-and-white dot matrix pictures, respectively (17

29

ms each). Next, a crying infant face was displayed for 800 ms. Participants were required to carefully

30

observe the infant face and asked to evaluate the face’s sadness from 1 (“not sad at all”) to 7 (“extremely 12

1

sad”). Another trial began after a 1000-2000 ms interval. Prior to the experiment, participants performed

2

ten practice trials to familiarize themselves with the experimental procedure.

3 4

[Insert Figure 3] We also asked the participants to rate the security subscale in SAAM before and after the

5

experimental tasks as a manipulation check of the priming. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86

6

(pre-test), 0.82 (post-test). In addition, to determine whether the priming stimuli were perceived

7

unconsciously, a forced choice recognition task consisting of 64 trials was conducted after the ERP

8

experiment. The participants were simultaneously presented with two pictures that included a priming

9

picture in the ERP experiment and an unrelated scene. The participants were then asked to determine

10

whether they were similar to the picture. If the accuracy rate of recognition is at a random level

11

(approximately 50%), then we can claim that the manipulation of subliminal priming is relatively

12

convincing.

13

3.1.5 ERP Recording and Analysis

14

ERP recording and analysis were the same as in Experiment 1. Epochs ranged from -200 to 1187 ms

15

relative to the onset of the forward masking using a 200 ms prestimulus baseline. Based on previous

16

studies (Ohla et al., 2010; Sami et al., 2006; Foti and Hajcak, 2008), the frontal P1 (45-85 ms after target

17

stimuli onset) and P2 (200-240 ms after target stimuli onset) were determined at the F1/2, F3/4, F5/6, and

18

AF3/4 electrode sites. N1 (120-160 ms) was analyzed at the F3/4, FC1/2 and FC3/4 electrode sites. Peak

19

amplitudes and latencies of the P1, N1, and P2 components were subjected to repeated-measures ANOVA

20

with the priming condition (neutral vs. secure), infant facial expression (neutral vs. crying), and electrode

21

location (right vs. left) as within-subject factors and attachment style (secure, anxious vs. avoidant) as a

22

between-subjects factor. Given the absence of a sharply defined peak, the P3 component (300 to 500 ms

23

after target stimuli onset) was observed and quantified as a mean amplitude at P1/2, P3/4, CP1/2 and

24

CP3/4 electrode sites (Tacikowski and Nowicka, 2010; Ran et al., 2014). The mean amplitudes of P3 were

25

subjected to a repeated-measures ANOVA with the priming condition, infant facial expression, and

26

electrode location as within-subject factors and attachment style as a between-subjects factor.

27

3.2 Results and Discussion

28

3.2.1 Behavioral Results

29

Manipulation check. A repeated-measures ANOVA on SSA revealed a main effect of test time (F (1,

30

60) = 14.26, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.192). A higher SSA score was observed in the post-test (M = 4.65, 95% CI 13

1

[4.52, 4.78]) than in the pretest (M = 4.50, 95% CI [4.38, 4.63]). No other main and interaction effects

2

were found in SSA. To examine the effect of subliminal security priming more specifically, as a

3

supplementary analysis, a paired-sample T test was conducted to compare the difference between the pre-

4

and post-test SSA in each attachment group. The results revealed that increases in the SSA scores from the

5

pre- to the post-measures were found in avoidant attachment (M = 4.64 to M = 4.84, t (20) = -3.32, p =

6

0.003) and anxious attachment (M = 4.38 to M = 4.47, t (19) = -2.01, p = 0.059, marginal significant),

7

whereas such significance was not found in secure attachment (M = 4.50 to M = 4.62, t (21) = -1.57, p =

8

0.132).

9

Rating of sadness (RS). A repeated-measures ANOVA on RS revealed a main effect of the priming

10

condition, F (1, 60) = 21.88, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.267. Subliminal security priming (M = 5.17, 95% CI (CI)

11

[4.96, 5.37]) resulted in a lower RS than neutral priming (M = 5.30, 95% CI [5.10, 5.50]) toward crying

12

infant faces. No other main and interaction effects were found in RS. As a supplementary analysis, we

13

conducted a paired-sample T test to examine the difference in RS between the subliminal security priming

14

and neutral priming in each attachment group. The results showed that a significant decrease in RS was

15

found in secure attachment (t (21) = 3.34, p = 0.003), anxious attachment (t (19) = 2.16, p = 0.043), and

16

avoidant attachment (t (20) = 2.73, p = 0.013) in subliminal security priming (Table 5).

17 18 19

[Insert Figure 4] 3.2.2 ERP Results P1 effect. A repeated-measures ANOVA on P1 peak amplitude showed significant main effects of

20

priming condition (F (1, 60) = 6.17, p = 0.016, η2 = 0.093) and electrode location (F (1, 60) = 14.59, p <

21

0.001, η2 = 0.196). Post hoc tests found that subliminal security priming (M = -0.52 µV, 95% CI [-1.59,

22

0.55]) elicited larger P1 amplitudes than did neutral priming (M = -1.00 µV, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.07]).

23

Additionally, the amplitudes in the left-located electrodes (M = -0.48 µV, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.54]) were

24

greater than those in the right-located electrodes (M = -1.04 µV, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.06]).

25

Furthermore, we found a significant three-way interaction between attachment style, priming

26

condition and electrode location (F (2, 60) = 3.72, p = 0.030, η2 = 0.110). Simple effects analyses indicated

27

that subliminal security priming elevated the P1 amplitudes to crying infant faces compared to neutral

28

priming in the left-located electrodes in both anxiously (p = 0.033) and avoidantly attached women (p =

29

0.035). However, no significant P1 amplitude difference was found between subliminal security priming

14

1

and neutral priming in securely attached women (ps > 0.1). Significant attachment-related effects were not

2

found for the P1 latency and therefore are not reported here. For details, please see supplementary 2.

3

N1 effect: Significant attachment-related effects were not found for the N1 peak amplitude and

4

latency and therefore are not reported here. For details, please see supplementary 2.

5

P2 effect. A repeated-measures ANOVA on P2 peak amplitude revealed a main effect of priming

6

condition F (1, 60) = 7.06, p = 0.010, η2 = 0.105, showing that subliminal security priming (M = 7.60 µV,

7

95% CI [6.41, 8.80]) elicited larger P2 amplitudes than neutral priming (M = 6.98 µV, 95% CI [5.72,

8

8.25]).

9

The interaction between attachment style and priming condition was also significant (F (2, 60) = 4.74,

10

p = 0.034, η2 = 0.107). Simple effect analysis showed that subliminal security priming evoked larger P2

11

amplitudes to crying infant faces than neutral priming in both avoidantly (p = 0.006) and anxiously

12

attached women (p = 0.027). However, no significant P2 amplitude difference was found between

13

subliminal security priming and neutral priming in securely attached women (p > 0.1, see Figure 5a).

14

Significant attachment-related effects were not found for the P2 latency and therefore are not reported here.

15

For details, please see supplementary 2.

16

[Insert Table 6]

17

P3 effect. A repeated-measures ANOVA on P3 mean amplitude revealed significant main effects of

18

priming condition (F (1, 60) = 9.59, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.138) and electrode location (F (1, 60) = 8.86, p =

19

0.004, η2 = 0.129). Post hoc tests suggested that subliminal security priming (M = 9.38 µV, 95% CI [8.41,

20

10.34]) result in larger P3 amplitudes than neutral priming (M = 8.87 µV, 95% CI [7.90, 9.85]), and the P3

21

amplitudes in the left-located electrodes (M = 9.47 µV, 95% CI [8.53, 10.40]) were greater than those in

22

the right-located electrodes (M = 8.78 µV, 95% CI [7.75, 9.81]). Neither the main effect nor the interaction

23

was significant (ps > 0.1).

24

Because of the significant main effect of the priming condition, to examine the effect of subliminal

25

security priming more specifically, we conducted a paired-sample T test to compare the P3 amplitude

26

between subliminal security priming and neutral priming in each attachment group. The results suggested

27

that subliminal security priming elicited greater P3 amplitude than neutral priming in avoidantly attached

28

women (t (20) = -2.69, p = 0.014), whereas this difference was not found in securely (t (21) = -1.74, p =

29

0.097) or anxiously (t (19) = -1.03, p = 0.315) attached women (see Figure 5b).

30

[Insert Figure 5] 15

1

In support of our hypothesis, the results of Experiment 2 showed that subliminal security priming

2

elicited greater P1 and P2 amplitudes to crying infant faces than subliminal neutral priming in avoidantly

3

and anxiously attached women. Previous studies have indicated that enhanced P1 amplitudes may reflect a

4

high level of arousal or vigilant attention to stimuli (Vogel and Luck, 2000; Kloth and Schweinberger, 2010;

5

Ran and Chen, 2017). Therefore, P1 may serve as an indicator of attention vigilance in information

6

processing. Subliminal security priming significantly improved early attention processing to crying infant

7

faces in insecure attachment. Furthermore, subliminal security priming enhance controlled attention

8

allocation (P3) to crying infant faces compared with neutral priming in avoidantly attached women. This

9

heightened attentional allocation in insecure attachment is also supported by behavioral results. Subliminal

10

security priming result in a higher attachment state score and lower rating of sadness in insecure

11

attachment, especially a longer reaction time for avoidantly attached women, which mirrors an attenuated

12

suppression to negative attachment information. The above results suggest that subliminal security priming

13

also produce a boosting effect on attentional processing within insecure attachment, and they especially

14

effectively attenuate the defensive reaction of avoidantly attached women. Unfortunately, subliminal

15

security priming did not elevate the P3 amplitudes to crying infant faces compared with neutral priming in

16

securely and anxiously attached women. Therefore, we may conclude that subliminal security priming are

17

an effective way to improve the attention processing deficit in insecure attachment, especially for avoidant

18

attachment, but the boosting effect did not appear in the later controlled attention in anxious attachment.

19

4 General Discussion

20

This study provides crucial evidence about the boosting effect of attentional function in insecure

21

attachment followed by security priming. Across the two ERP experiments, we obtained two key findings.

22

First, security priming produced a boosting effect on attentional processing of infant faces in insecure

23

attachment. Second, although both the supraliminal and the subliminal security priming produced a

24

boosting effect on attention function in insecure attachment, the effectiveness and applicability of each

25

type of priming in the boosting effect are different. Taken as a whole, the present research is one of the first

26

systematic attempts to directly explore the security priming effect in attachment system activation and its

27

influence on the attention function in each attachment style.

28

From the results of Experiments 1 and 2, we can conclude that supraliminal and subliminal security

29

priming have similarities and differences. On the one hand, they both produced a boosting effect on the

30

attention function of insecure attachment; on the other hand, the effectiveness and applicability of each 16

1

security priming in this boosting effect are different. First, this research provided consistent evidence that

2

security priming improved the attention processing deficit related to infant emotions in insecure attachment,

3

and this boosting effect was replicated across both supraliminal and subliminal security priming. In general,

4

the results of Experiments 1 and 2 suggested that relative to neutral priming, security priming not only

5

improved early attention allocation but also promoted later controlled attention to infant emotions in

6

anxiously and avoidantly attached women. The behavioral results also converge with ERP findings

7

showing that security priming produce a series of positive outcomes in insecure attachment, such as

8

increased state-secure attachment in insecure attachment and a decreased sadness rating to crying infant

9

faces in avoidant attachment. We argued that the boosting effect of security priming was caused by

10

exposure to security-related signals that activated the security schema in the attachment structure in

11

insecure attachment. As previous research has suggested, even a person with a globally insecure

12

attachment style might have, or had in the past, partners who function as security-enhancing attachment

13

representations (Mikulincer et al., 2002). Therefore, when an insecure attachment is treated in a

14

security-enhancing way by attachment priming, memories of other successful bids for proximity are

15

activated, and memories of unsuccessful proximity-seeking attempts are inhibited (Mikulincer and Shaver,

16

2007b). Accordingly, the cognitive activation of the secure base schema can lead insecurely attached

17

individuals to behave in a more secure manner to cope with threatening information. For example, as

18

mentioned in the introduction, security priming increase the pursuit of support and decrease

19

self-depreciation when faced with a stressful situation in insecure attachment (Pierce and Lydon, 1998),

20

attenuating the intense hurt feelings of rejection in anxious attachment and the inhibition expressions of

21

distress in avoidant attachment (Pierce and Lydon, 1998; Cassidy et al., 2009; Shaver et al., 2009).

22

Furthermore, fMRI studies have also found that security priming attenuate the activation of the amygdala,

23

fusiform and occipital gyrus to social and linguistic threats in anxiously and avoidantly attached groups

24

and increase the temporal gyrus and frontal gyrus activity to positive emotion in anxiously attached

25

individuals (Norman et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2017). Accordingly, the cognitive activation of the secure

26

base schema can lead insecurely attached individuals to behave in a more secure manner, similar to their

27

dispositionally secure counterparts (Andriopoulos and Kafetsios, 2015). However, security priming did not

28

cause a boosting effect in secure attachment except for the sadness rating. Indeed, secure attachment is

29

associated with more adaptive forms of coping with stress and regulating affect and provides a resilience

30

resource that reduces the negative impact of insecurity priming (Gillath et al., 2008; Mikulincer and Shaver, 17

1

2007b). Thus, we argue that individuals with secure attachment already possess a secure schema to help

2

them cope with infant emotions (Andriopoulos and Kafetsios, 2015). In support of our results, previous

3

research suggested that the enhancement effect of security priming is less evident among securely attached

4

individuals because they can mobilize security-enhancing mental representations and caring qualities

5

within themselves even in the absence of external cues (Shaver et al., 2009).

6

Second, although both supraliminal and subliminal security priming produce a boosting effect on

7

attention function in insecure attachment, they differ in their effectiveness and applicability. Supraliminal

8

security priming not only improved early attention processing, but the boosting effect also reappeared in

9

later controlled attention to infant emotions in insecure attachment. However, supraliminal security

10

priming were not as effective for avoidant attachment because the boosting effect on attention function was

11

not as obvious in avoidantly attached women than in anxiously attached women, which is mirrored by the

12

results of the P2 and P3 components. In addition, the behavioral results showed no significant increase

13

between pre- and postmeasures in state attachment in avoidantly attached women. We speculate that the

14

reason supraliminal security priming were not as effective may be because they are unsuitable for avoidant

15

attachment. Exposure to positive attachment reminders may also activate the defensive strategy to some

16

extent, which may prevent individuals with avoidant attachment from recalling positive emotional and

17

behavioral experiences with attachment figures (Waters and Roisman, 2019). In support of our notion, the

18

results of a meta-analysis of security priming suggests that supraliminal attachment priming is effective at

19

downregulating the hyperactivating strategies in anxious attachment but may not be as effective in

20

avoidant attachment because of individuals’ use of defense mechanisms (Gillath and Karantzas, 2018). For

21

example, supraliminal security priming attenuate distress and intrusive traumatic memories (Bryant and

22

Chan, 2017), and perception of pain intensity of others (Pan et al., 2016) in anxiously but not in avoidantly

23

attached individuals. Additionally, repeated supraliminal security priming has attenuated participants’

24

dispositional attachment anxiety with no priming-induced change in avoidantly attached individuals

25

(Carnelley and Rowe, 2007; Lavi, 2007). However, the subliminal security priming led to better

26

performance in early attention function within insecure attachment. In particular, the boosting effect is

27

extended to the later controlled attention stage in avoidantly attached women. The behavioral findings also

28

support the ERP results. Subliminal security priming enhanced state attachment in anxiously and

29

avoidantly attached women and produced a buffer effect to reduce the sadness rating of crying infant faces

30

in all attachment groups. Therefore, we argue that subliminal security priming are a more effective and 18

1

applicable priming method for avoidant attachment. Nevertheless, subliminal security priming also have

2

limitations. The boosting effect derived from subliminal security priming was limited to the early attention

3

processing stage and did not extend to the later controlled attention stage among anxiously attached

4

women. We infer that the effect of subliminal security priming was not as strong as that of supraliminal

5

priming so that they cannot extend to the later controlled attention stage in anxious attachment.

6

The findings of Experiments 1 and 2 add to the understanding of the boosting effect of security

7

priming on insecure attachment. On the one hand, security priming are an effective intervention approach

8

because both supraliminal and subliminal priming effectively improve the attention processing deficit

9

among insecure attachment. On the other hand, both supraliminal and subliminal security priming have

10

limitations. Regarding the limitations of the two methods, there seems to be an effectiveness-applicability

11

tradeoff between supraliminal and subliminal security priming. To address this limitation, our research

12

emphasizes the importance of the selection of the security priming method for each type of insecure

13

attachment and suggests that further research should adopt long-term security priming. These findings

14

should be considered in the context of certain study limitations. First, the sample size of each experiment

15

in present study is relatively small, which may prevent the provision of reliable evidence of the boosting

16

effect of secure priming on the attentional processing of infant faces in insecure attachment. This is

17

because participant screening was difficult in our experiments: few women met our screening criteria even

18

though nearly 700 people were recruited to complete the online ECR inventory. However, the boosting

19

effect of security priming was replicated across two experiments, which proved the reliability of our results,

20

at least to a certain extent. Second, another limitation is that the ECR questionnaire does not allow the

21

identification of a specific attachment style because it is a dimensional quantitative scale. In future studies,

22

the researchers need to conduct a clinical assessment using the Adult Attachment Interview to identify a

23

specific attachment style. Third, we should acknowledged that the manipulation check for the detectability

24

of the subliminal priming in present study is unconventional, future study should adopt a more

25

conventional measure to detect whether the participants are able to identify stimuli presented for 17 ms.

26

Fourth, present study did not control other variables, such as trait anxiety. Because trait anxiety can be

27

confounded with attachment anxiety (Shaver & Brennan, 1992), future studies should include such a

28

measure. Fifth, behavioral results should be interpreted with caution in present study, because it is not a

29

recommended practice to perform simple effects analyses when the higher-order interaction is not

30

significant (Nieuwenhuis, Forstmann, & Wagenmakers, 2011). 19

1

In conclusion, this study provides a global framework for understanding the boosting effects of

2

security priming on the attention function of insecure attachment and the different roles of supraliminal

3

and subliminal security priming in these boosting effects. This study also has important theoretical and

4

realistic significance because our findings suggest that a more targeted and applicable method of security

5

priming should be employed for each type of insecure attachment to develop an intervention through

6

which chronically insecure individuals might be led toward attachment security.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 20

1

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

2

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

3

publication of this article.

4 5 6

Funding

7

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or

8

publication of this article: Preparation of this manuscript was supported by Grant 31771232 from National

9

Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 21

1

Reference

2

Amodio, D. M. (2010). Coordinated roles of motivation and perception in the regulation of intergroup

3

responses: Frontal cortical asymmetry effects on the P2 event-related potential and behavior. Journal

4

of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(11), 2609-2617.

5 6 7 8 9 10

Andriopoulos, P., & Kafetsios, K. (2015). priming the secure attachment schema: effects on emotion information processing. Psihologijske Teme, 24(1), 71-89. Beck, L., & Madresh, E. A. (2008). Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoös, 21(1), 43-56. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books Breatherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships. In J.

11

Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 89-111). New York: Guilford Press.

12

Bryant, R. A., & Chan, I. (2017). Activating attachment representations during memory retrieval modulates

13 14 15

intrusive traumatic memories. Consciousness and Cognition, 55, 197-204. Carnelley, K. B., & Rowe, A. C. (2007). Repeated priming of attachment security influences later views of self and relationships. Personal Relationships, 14(2), 307-320.

16

Carretié, L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M., & Hinojosa, J. A. (2001). Emotion, attention, and the ‘negativity bias’,

17

studied through event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 41(1), 75-85.

18

Cassidy, J., Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., & Lavy, S. (2009). Experimentally induced security influences

19

responses to psychological pain. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(4), 463-478.

20

Chavis, J. M., & Kisley, M. A. (2012). Adult attachment and motivated attention to social images:

21

Attachment-based differences in event-related brain potentials to emotional images. Journal of

22

Research in Personality, 46(1), 55-62.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Chen, X., Ran, G., Zhang, Q., & Hu, T. (2015). Unconscious attention modulates the silencing effect of top-down predictions. Consciousness and Cognition, 34, 63-72. Cheng, G., Zhang, D. J., Guan, Y. S., & Chen, Y. H. (2015). Preliminary establishment of the standardized Chinese infant facial expression of emotion. Chinese Mental Health Journal. 29(6), 406-412. Dan, O., & Raz, S. (2012). Adult attachment and emotional processing biases: An Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) study. Biological Psychology,91(2), 212-220. Dewitte, M., De Houwer, J., Koster, E. H., & Buysse, A. (2007). What's in a name? Attachment-related attentional bias. Emotion, 7(3), 535-545. 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dutton, D. G., Lane, R. A., Koren, T., & Bartholomew, K. (2016). Secure base priming diminishes conflict-based anger and anxiety. PloS one, 11(9), e0162374. Eimer, M., & Holmes, A. (2002). An ERP study on the time course of emotional face processing. Neuroreport, 13(4), 427-431. Eimer, M., & Holmes, A. (2007). Event-related brain potential correlates of emotional face processing. Neuropsychologia, 45(1), 15-31. Felmingham, K. L., Bryant, R. A., & Gordon, E. (2003). Processing angry and neutral faces in post-traumatic stress disorder: an event-related potentials study. Neuroreport, 14(5), 777-780.

9

Foti, D., & Hajcak, G. (2008). Deconstructing reappraisal: Descriptions preceding arousing pictures

10

modulate the subsequent neural response. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(6), 977-988.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Fraedrich, E. M., Lakatos, K., & Spangler, G. (2010). Brain activity during emotion perception: the role of attachment representation. Attachment & human development, 12(3), 231-248. Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 362-373. Gillath, O., & Karantzas, G. (2018). Attachment security priming: a systematic review. Current opinion in psychology, 25, 86-95. Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment style: Can repeated

18

security priming help?. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1651-1666.

19

Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Long-term effects of repeated security priming. Unpublished

20

manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas.

21

Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N. (2009). Baby

22

schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology,

23

115(3), 257–263.

24 25 26 27 28

Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic and contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 452-461. Hahn, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Neural and behavioral responses to attractiveness in adult and infant faces. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 591-603. Herrmann, M., Schreppel, T., Jäger, D., Koehler, S., Ehlis, A. C., and Fallgatter, A. J. (2007). The

29

other-race e ect for face perception: an event-related potential study. Journal of Neural Transmission,

30

114, 951–957. 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hillyard, S. A., Teder-Sälejärvi, W. A., & Münte, T. F. (1998). Temporal dynamics of early perceptual processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8(2), 202-210. Jarvinen, M. J., & Paulus, T. B. (2017). Attachment and cognitive openness: Emotional underpinnings of intellectual humility. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(1), 74-86. Kanske, P., Plitschka, J., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Attentional orienting towards emotion: P2 and N400 ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 49(11), 3121-3129. Karremans, J. C., Heslenfeld, D. J., van Dillen, L. F., & Van Lange, P. A. (2011). Secure attachment

8

partners attenuate neural responses to social exclusion: An fMRI investigation. International Journal

9

of Psychophysiology, 81(1), 44-50.

10 11 12

Kloth, N., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of eye gaze adaptation. Journal of Vision, 10(12):17, 1-13. Lavi, N. (2007). Bolstering attachment security in romantic relationships: The long-term contribution of

13

partner’s sensitivity, expressiveness, and supportiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan

14

University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

15

Lenzi, D., Trentini, C., Pantano, P., Macaluso, E., Lenzi, G. L., & Ammaniti, M. (2013). Attachment

16

models affect brain responses in areas related to emotions and empathy in nulliparous women. Human

17

brain mapping, 34(6), 1399-1414.

18

Lenzi, D., Trentini, C., Tambelli, R., & Pantano, P. (2015). Neural basis of attachment-caregiving systems

19

interaction: insights from neuroimaging studies. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1241.

20

Leyh, R., Heinisch, C., Behringer, J., Reiner, I., & Spangler, G. (2016). Maternal Attachment

21

Representation and Neurophysiological Processing during the Perception of Infants’ Emotional

22

Expressions. PloS One, 11(2), e0147294.

23 24 25

Li, T. G., & Kato, K. (2006). Measuring adult attachment: Chinese adaptation of the ECR scale. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(3), 399-406. Liao, R., Wang, S., Zhang, P., Zhou, Y., & Liu, X. (2017). Effect of priming with attachment security on

26

positive affect among individuals with depression. Social Behavior and Personality: an international

27

journal, 45(2), 331-338.

28 29 30

Liu, Y., Chen, X., Zhai, J., Tang, Q., & Hu, J. (2016). Development of the Attachment Affective Picture System. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 44(9), 1565-1574. Luo, W., Feng, W., He, W., Wang, N. Y., & Luo, Y. J. (2010). Three stages of facial expression processing: 24

1 2

ERP study with rapid serial visual presentation. Neuroimage, 49(2), 1857-1867. Ma, Y., Ran, G., Chen, X., Ma, H., & Hu, N. (2017). Adult Attachment Styles Associated with Brain

3

Activity in Response to Infant Faces in Nulliparous Women: An Event-Related Potentials Study.

4

Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 627.

5 6 7

Mallinckrodt, B. (2007). A call to broaden and build Mikulincer and Shaver's work on the benefits of priming attachment security. Psychological Inquiry, 18(3), 168-172. Mikulincer, M., & Arad, D. (1999). Attachment working models and cognitive openness in close

8

relationships: A test of chronic and temporary accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social

9

Psychology, 77(4), 710-725.

10

Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affective component of the

11

secure base schema: Affective priming with representations of attachment security. Journal of

12

Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 305-321.

13 14 15 16

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007a). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139 –156. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R. (2007b). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York: Guilford Press.

17

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007c). Reflections on security dynamics: Core constructs, psychological

18

mechanisms, relational contexts, and the need for an integrative theory. Psychological Inquiry, 18(3),

19

197-209.

20 21

Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B. U., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2011). Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience, 14(9), 1105.

22

Norman, L., Lawrence, N., Iles, A., Benattayallah, A., & Karl, A. (2014). Attachment-security priming

23

attenuates amygdala activation to social and linguistic threat. Social Cognitive and Affective

24

Neuroscience, 10(6), 832-839.

25

Ohla, K., Toepel, U., le Coutre, J., & Hudry, J. (2010). Electrical neuroimaging reveals intensity-dependent

26

activation of human cortical gustatory and somatosensory areas by electric taste. Biological

27

Psychology, 85(3), 446-455.

28

Pan, Y., Zhang, D., Liu, Y., Ran, G., & Teng, Z. (2017). The effects of attachment style and security

29

priming on the perception of others’ pain. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2),

30

184-208. 25

1

Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. (1998). priming relational schemas: Effects of contextually activated and

2

chronically accessible interpersonal expectations on responses to a stressful event. Journal of

3

Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1441.

4

Rowe, A., & Carnelley, K. B. (2003). Attachment style differences in the processing of

5

attachment–relevant information: Primed–style effects on recall, interpersonal expectations, and affect.

6

Personal Relationships, 10(1), 59-75.

7 8 9

Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128-2148. Proverbio, A. M., Riva, F., Zani, A., & Martin, E. (2011). Is it a baby? Perceived age affects brain

10

processing of faces differently in women and men. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11),

11

3197-3208.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Ran, G., & Chen, X. (2017). The impact of top-down prediction on emotional face processing in social anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1269. Ran, G., Chen, X., & Pan, Y. (2014). Human sex differences in emotional processing of own-race and other-race faces. Neuroreport, 25(9), 683-687. Ran, G., & Zhang, Q. (2018). The neural correlates of attachment style during emotional processing: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Attachment & Human Development, 20(6), 626-633. Sami, S. A. K., Rössel, P., Dimcevski, G., Nielsen, K. D., Funch-Jensen, P., Valeriani, M., et al. (2006).

19

Cortical changes to experimental sensitization of the human esophagus. Neuroscience, 140(1),

20

269-279.

21

Schutter, D. J., de Haan, E. H., & van Honk, J. (2004). Functionally dissociated aspects in anterior and

22

posterior electrocortical processing of facial threat. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 53(1),

23

29-36.

24

Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Lavy, S., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Understanding and altering hurt feelings: An

25

attachment-theoretical perspective on the generation and regulation of emotions. In A. L. Vangelisti

26

(Ed.), Advances in personal relationships. Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 92-119). New York,

27

NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

28

Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2010). Modeling the hierarchical structure of personality-attachment

29

associations: Domain diffusion versus domain differentiation. Journal of Social and Personal

30

Relationships, 27(1), 47-70. 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sohlberg, S., & Birgegard, A. (2003). Persistent complex subliminal activation effects: First experimental observations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(2), 302. Strathearn, L., Fonagy, P., Amico, J., & Montague, P. R. (2009). Adult attachment predicts maternal brain and oxytocin response to infant cues. Neuropsychopharmacology, 34(13), 2655. Swain, J. E., Kim, P., & Ho, S. S. (2011). Neuroendocrinology of parental response to baby-cry. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 23(11), 1036-1041. Tacikowski, P., & Nowicka, A. (2010). Allocation of attention to self-name and self-face: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 84(2), 318-324. Talsma, D., & Woldorff, M. G. (2005). Selective attention and multisensory integration: multiple phases of effects on the evoked brain activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(7), 1098-1114.

11

Tang, Q., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). Priming the secure attachment schema affects the emotional

12

face processing bias in attachment anxiety: an fMRI research. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 624.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2000). The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology, 37(2), 190-203. Vrticka, P., & Vuilleumier, P. (2012). Neuroscience of human social interactions and adult attachment style. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 212. Waters TEA, Roisman GI. (2019). The secure base script concept: an overview. Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 1-6. Woldorff, M. G., Gallen, C. C., Hampson, S. A., Hillyard, S. A., Pantev, C., Sobel, D., et al (1993).

20

Modulation of early sensory processing in human auditory cortex during auditory selective attention.

21

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90(18), 8722–8726.

22 23 24 25

Zhang, Q., Ran, G., & Li, X. (2018). The perception of facial emotional change in social anxiety: An ERP Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Zilber, A., Goldstein, A., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment orientations and the processing of emotional pictures--erp correlates. Personality & Individual Differences, 43(7), 1898-1907.

27

Table 1. ECR scores, and others descriptive statistics of the three attachment groups Total

Secure group

Anxious group

Avoidant group

N

60 females

19 females

20 females

21 females

Age(year)

21.43 ± 1.52

20.84 ± 1.47

21.88 ± 1.51

21.59 ± 1.27

Anxious score

4.29 ± 0.62

3.74 ± 0.43

5.86 ± 0.41

3.29 ± 0.42

Avoidant score

4.02 ± 0.43

3.28 ± 0.39

3.15 ± 0.38

5.66 ± 0.37

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of amplitudes as a function of priming scene, infant facial expression, attachment style, and electrode location N1 amplitude

P2 latency

P3 amplitude

Attachment style

NP

SP

NP

SP

NP

SP

NIF+CIF(L)

NIF+CIF(L)

NIF(R)

CIF(R)

NIF(R)

CIF(R)

NIF(R)

CIF(R)

NIF(R)

CIF(R)

Secure

-3.80[-4.78,-2.82] a

-3.87[-5.01,-2.73] a

164.13[159.49,168.77] a

167.76[162.92,172.61] a

163.68[158.65,168.72] a

167.70[162.70,172.69] a

9.03[7.30,10.77] a

9.54[7.71,11.37] a

8.82[7.21,10.43] a

9.18[7.43,10.94] a

Anxious

-3.90[-4.86,-2.95] a

-4.65[-5.76,-3.53] b

162.85[158.33,167.37] a

169.80[165.08,174.52] a

163.05[158.14,167.96] a

166.25[161.38,171.12] b

9.02[7.33,10.71] a

8.71[6.93,10.49] a

8.26[6.69, 9.83] a

9.36[7.65,11.07] b

Avoidant

-3.21[-4.16,-2.25] a

-3.70[-4.78,-2.62] b

165.63[161.10,170.15] a

169.48[164.75,174.20] a

164.45[159.54,169.36] a

168.73[163.86,173.60] a

8.99[7.34,10.65] a

8.21[6.47, 9.95] *b

8.69[7.16,10.22] a

8.85[7.18,10.52] a

Note. The 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. Means with different superscripts per row in each level are statistically different (P < 0.05 with boferroni corrections), “NP” means neutral priming, “SP” means attachment security priming, “NIF” means neutral infant face, “CIF” means crying infant face, “L” means left electrode, “R” means right electrode, “*b” means marginal significance.

Table 3. Results of main effect and interaction effect in analysis of variance N1 amplitude

P2 latency η2

F

p

η2

0.045*

0.070

0.23

0.630

0.004

**

0.586

1.26

0.267

0.022

Source

F

p

η2

F

p

Priming type (PT)

4.49

0.039*

0.073

4.21

Infant facial expression (IFE)

2.23

0.141 0.000

**

P3 amplitude

0.038

79.27

0.000

0.193

1.57

0.216

0.027

3.88

0.054

0.064

Electrode location (EL)

13.67

Attachment style (AS)

0.22

0.805

0.008

0.19

0.829

0.007

0.13

0.874

0.005

PT × AS

1.08

0.348

0.036

0.34

0.715

0.012

1.05

0.358

0.035

IFE × AS

0.76

0.474

0.026

1.36

0.265

0.046

0.76

0.466

0.026

EL × AS

1.35

0.268

0.045

0.10

0.907

0.003

0.09

0.919

0.003

PT × IFE

0.01

0.934

0.000

0.03

0.872

0.000

7.44

PT × EL

1.09

0.302

0.019

0.06

0.816

0.001

0.01

0.905

0.000

IFE × EL

0.68

0.413

0.012

0.60

0.443

0.011

0.60

0.443

0.010

PV × IFE × AS

0.89

0.418

0.030

0.05

0.953

0.002

1.65

0.201

0.055

0.151

3.28

0.045

*

0.105

0.28

0.756

0.010

0.011

0.49

0.615

0.017

2.57

0.086

0.083

PV × EL × AS

5.05

IFE × EL × AS

0.32

0.010

**

0.729

0.008

**

0.115

PT × IFE × EL

0.10

PV × IFE × EL × AS *

0.27

0.755

0.002

0.768

2.49

0.009

0.120

6.28

0.003

0.043

**

0.183

0.92

0.342

0.016

3.61

*

0.112

0.033

**

Note: P < 0.05, P < 0.01 with boferroni corrections.

Table 4. ECR scores, RQ types, and others descriptive statistics of the three attachment groups Total

Secure group

Anxious group

Avoidant group

N

63 females

22 females

20 females

21 females

Age(year)

21.44 ± 1.64

21.31 ± 1.33

21.42 ± 1.35

21.56 ± 1.33

Anxious score

4.18 ± 0.45

3.33 ± 0.41

5.98 ± 0.43

3.26 ± 0.41

Avoidant score

4.05 ± 0.46

3.02 ± 0.44

3.10 ± 0.41

5.67 ± 0.44

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of amplitudes as a function of priming scene, attachment style, and electrode location Behavioral results

ERP results

P1 peak amplitude

Rating of sadness

P2 peak amplitude

Attachment style

NP

SP

NP(L)

SP(L)

Secure

5.40[5.07, 5.74]a

5.26[4.91, 5.61]b

-0.75[-2.52, 1.02]a

-0.90[-2.66, 0.85]a

7.13[4.99, 9.28]a

Anxious

5.06[4.71, 5.42]a

4.93[4.56, 5.29]b

-0.87[-2.72, 0.99]a

-0.07[1.92, 1.77]b

Avoidant

5.43[5.08, 5.77]a

5.32[4.96, 5.68]b

-0.54[-2.35, 1.27]a

0.23[-1.57, 2.03]b

NP

SP

P3 amplitude NP

SP

6.89[4.86, 8.91]a

9.31[7.41, 11.20]a

9.71[7.78, 11.63]a

8.07[5.82, 10.32]a

9.01[6.88, 11.13]b

9.00[7.21, 10.79]a

9.34[7.47, 11.20]a

5.75[3.56, 7.95]a

6.92[4.85, 8.99]b

8.31[6.75, 9.87]a

9.08[7.71, 10.46]b

Note. The 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. Means with different superscripts per row in each level are statistically different (P < 0.05 with boferroni corrections), “NP” means neutral priming, “SP” means attachment security priming, “L” means left electrode.

Table 6. Results of main effect and interaction effect in analysis of variance P1 amplitude

P2 amplitude

P3 amplitude

Source

F

p

η

F

p

η

F

p

η2

Priming type (PT)

6.17

0.016*

0.093

7.06

0.010**

0.105

9.59

0.003**

0.138

Electrode location (EL)

14.59

0.000**

0.196

2.42

0.125

0.039

8.86

0.004**

0.249

Attachment style (AS)

0.08

0.927

0.003

1.13

0.331

0.036

0.25

0.783

0.008

PT × EL

0.05

0.827

0.001

0.04

0.853

0.001

1.72

0.194

0.028

*

0.107

0.70

0.503

0.023

*

2

2

PT × AS

2.51

0.090

0.077

3.59

0.034

EL × AS

1.01

0.370

0.033

0.58

0.565

0.019

0.12

0.883

0.004

PV × EL × AS

3.72

0.030*

0.110

2.33

0.106

0.072

0.26

0.776

0.008

**

Note: P < 0.05, P < 0.01 with boferroni corrections.

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the experimental procedure in Experiment 1.

Figure 2. (a) Grand average ERPs of the N1 and P2 component recorded at FC3 during two priming types in each attachment group; (b) Grand average ERPs of the P3 component recorded at P2 in response to neutral and crying infant face during priming types in each attachment group (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of the experimental procedure in Experiment 2.

Figure 4. State attachment and rating of sadness in different priming conditions among three attachment groups (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).

Figure 5. (a) Grand average ERPs of the P1 and P2 component recorded at F3 during two priming types in each attachment group; (b) Grand average ERPs of the P3 component recorded at P1 during two priming types in each attachment group (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).

Highlights Present research is a systematic study to directly explore the security priming effect in attachment system activation and its influence on the attention function in each attachment style. We think it contribute a lot to the research of attachment primes. 1. The present research is one of the first systematic attempts to directly explore the security priming effect in attachment system activation and its influence on the attention function in each attachment style. 2. Present study suggests that primes with a secure attachment schema can have very different effects on the attention function of insecure and secure attachment as well as emphasize the crucial contribution of dispositional attachment differences. 3. Supraliminal and subliminal security primes produced the boosting effect on attention function within insecure attachment, however, the effectiveness and applicability of each type of primes in the boosting effect are different.