The study investigates whether threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in individuals with subclinical anxiety. Using an attentional cueing paradigm, the researchers found that threat words and angry faces did not outperform positive or neutral words or faces in attracting attention to their own location, even among highly state-anxious individuals. However, the presence of threatening cues had a significant impact on the disengagement of attention. High state-anxious individuals took longer to detect a target when it appeared in a location previously occupied by a threat cue compared to when a positive or neutral cue was presented. The study concludes that threat-related stimuli affect the disengagement component of attention, leaving the question of whether they affect the shift component open for further debate. The authors suggest that the attentional bias observed in anxiety may be due to defective disengagement from threatening stimuli rather than automatic drawing of attention.The study investigates whether threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in individuals with subclinical anxiety. Using an attentional cueing paradigm, the researchers found that threat words and angry faces did not outperform positive or neutral words or faces in attracting attention to their own location, even among highly state-anxious individuals. However, the presence of threatening cues had a significant impact on the disengagement of attention. High state-anxious individuals took longer to detect a target when it appeared in a location previously occupied by a threat cue compared to when a positive or neutral cue was presented. The study concludes that threat-related stimuli affect the disengagement component of attention, leaving the question of whether they affect the shift component open for further debate. The authors suggest that the attentional bias observed in anxiety may be due to defective disengagement from threatening stimuli rather than automatic drawing of attention.