1. Experiment 2: N = 206 1 Factor Repeated Measures ANCOVA  Span Factor Score Covariate: Shortened Complex Span Tasks. 8  Conditions: Negative-Arousing vs. Neutral-Not Arousing Partial-Unit span scores were lower when negative-arousing images served as distractors, F(1, 204) = 76.711, MSE = 31.641, p <.001, partial  2 =.273. WMC did not moderate the effect of emotional content on attention at encoding, F < 1. There was an interaction between valence and arousal, F(1, 180) = 3.789, MSE = 25.461, p =.053, partial  2 =.021. WMC did not moderate the effect of Valence or Arousal on attention at encoding, Fs < 1. WMC did not moderate the interaction between Valence and Arousal on partial-unit span scores, F < 2.074. High valence images were remembered better than low valence images, F(1, 180) = 54.654, MSE = 0.018, p <.001, partial  2 =.233. High arousal images were remembered better than low arousal images, F(1, 180) = 10.314, MSE = 0.023, p =.002, partial  2 =.054. Experiment 2: N = 182 2 Factor Repeated Measures ANCOVA Span Factor Score Covariate: Complex Span Tasks. 9 Valence (Negative vs. Neutral) Arousal (Arousing vs. Not Arousing) Post Experiment Recognition Task Individual differences in working memory capacity partly arise from variability in attention control, a process influenced by negative emotional content. Thus, individual differences in working memory capacity should be predictive of differences in the ability to regulate attention in emotional contexts. To address this hypothesis, a complex- span working memory task (symmetry span) was modified so that negative arousing images or neutral images subtended the background during the encoding phase. Across 3 experiments, negative arousing images impaired working memory encoding relative to neutral images, resulting in impoverished symmetry span scores. Contrary to our hypothesis, individual differences in working memory capacity derived from two additional complex span tasks failed to moderate the effect of negative arousing images on working memory encoding across two large scale studies. Implications for theories of working memory and attention control in emotional contexts will be discussed. Negative Arousing Images Impair Working Memory Encoding Kimberly M. Wingert, B. Hunter Ball, Chris Blais, & Gene A. Brewer Arizona State University MACLab The Memory & Attention Control Laboratory  Alerting  Orienting  Executive Control Attentional Network Test  Measures efficiency in each network of attention 1  Working memory capacity predicts performance in the executive control network.  Primarily driven by response times on incongruent trials. 2  Emotion also interacts with the executive control attention network.  Primarily driven by response times on congruent trials. 3 High and low working memory capacity participants should differ when controlled processing is needed, but not when automatic processing is needed to perform a task. 4, 5  Arousal is automatically processed and activates an amygdala- hippocampal network. 6  Valence is processed in a controlled manner and activates a prefrontal-hippocampal network. 6 The present study manipulated emotional content at encoding using images from the International Affective Picture System database. 7 The goal of this study was to determine if top-down attention control can be used to suppress the effect of emotional content on attention at encoding. Experiment 1: N = 44 1 Factor Repeated Measures ANOVA  Conditions: Negative-Arousing vs. Neutral-Not Arousing Partial-Unit span scores were lower when negative-arousing images served as distractors, F(1, 43) = 4.112, MSE = 25.471, p =.049, partial  2 =.087. Valence is processed in a controlled manner and activates a prefrontal- hippocampal network. 6  The present study indicates that valence and arousal both impact attention at encoding relatively automatically. An alternative explanation is that in the present study the effect emotion had on attention occurred in a different attentional network such as orienting.  This could have occurred due to the simultaneous presentation of the emotional content and the to-be-remembered stimuli. 1.Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 14(3), 340-347. 2.Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2006). Working memory capacity and attention network test performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), 713-721. 3.Cohen, N., Henik, A., & Mor, N. (2011). Can emotion modulate attention? Evidence for reciprocal links in the attentional network test. Experimental psychology. 4.Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological bulletin, 130(4), 553. 5.Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity in hot and cold cognition. Cognitive limitations in aging and psychopathology, 19-43. 6.Kensinger, E. A., & Corkin, S. (2004). Two routes to emotional memory: Distinct neural processes for valence and arousal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(9), 3310-3315. 7.Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. 8.Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2014). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & cognition, 43(2), 226-236. 9.Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 12(5), 769-786.