Group differences on the facial-emotional Stroop The difference between the mood groups in their mean reaction times for each stimulus type in the facial Stroop test was tested for significance by conducting a 2 (Group: sad, happy) × 4 (Face Valence: sad, angry, neutral, happy) × 2 (Gender:

male, female) ANOVA. First, the findings Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical reveal a main effect of mood with the sad mood group taking significantly longer overall than the happy mood group, F(1, 114), = 4.77, P= 0.008, ηp2 = 0.040. A significant interaction was found for Mood × Emotional Face F(1, 114), = 6.59, P= 0.012, ηp2 = 0.048. Comparisons of the mood group means within each of the emotional face types reveal that the mean response Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical times did not differ between the two mood groups for the happy and sad faces, but did differ significantly for the angry-threatening (t(114) = 3.818 with adjustment for heterogeneity, P < 0.001) and the neutral (t(114) = 1.990, P= 0.049) emotional faces, with longer latencies for the sad mood group. Also of interest was the impact of facial gender on response time for both groups.

Results revealed a significant facial gender by emotion interaction whereby both groups responded slower to neutral female faces compared to male neutral faces F(2, 114), = 7.16, P= 0.009, ηp2 = 0.059. No other differences Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical concerning facial gender yielded significant differences. Group differences on the chairs Stroop The difference between the two mood groups in their mean reaction times for the chairs Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Stroop test was tested for significance by

conducting a one-way ANOVA with mood as the independent variable and reaction time as the dependent variable. The results of this analysis indicate the difference in mean reaction times between the mood groups was not statistically significant, F(1, 114) = 2.86, P= 0.093. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Table 3 reports the differences in facial-emotional means and chairs means between the two mood groups. Discussion Despite the many efforts to investigate attentional interference in sad mood, the specific valenced stimuli that Sitaxentan cause interference have not been unequivocally established. Compared to depression research utilizing the emotional Stroop (e.g., Lim and Kim 2005), less work has been done to investigate emotional Stroop performance as a function of mood in nondepressed participants put into a sad mood, and results have been mixed (Chepenik et al. 2007). The aim of the present study was to learn whether attentional interference occurred for subjects in sad mood states for emotionally relevant stimuli (mood-congruence), and to determine whether this interference occurred for both valenced words and valenced faces. We were unable to locate any prior studies that have evaluated JNJ-26481585 purchase Valence and modality-specific attentional interferences using three versions of the Stroop task across the same sample of participants.