7 found
  1.  28
    The Cognitive‐Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence. [REVIEW]Rainer Reisenzein, Gernot Horstmann & Achim Schützwohl - 2019 - Topics in Cognitive Science 11 (1):50-74.
    Research on surprise relevant to the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise proposed by Meyer, Reisenzein, and Schützwohl is reviewed. The majority of the assumptions of the model are found empirically supported. Surprise is evoked by unexpected events and its intensity is determined by the degree if schema-discrepancy, whereas the novelty and the valence of the eliciting events probably do not have an independent effect. Unexpected events cause an automatic interruption of ongoing mental processes that is followed by an attentional shift and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  28
    An Experimental Analysis of Surprise.Wulf-Uwe Meyer, Michael Niepel, Udo Rudolph & Achim Schützwohl - 1991 - Cognition and Emotion 5 (4):295-311.
  3.  14
    Temporal Characteristics of the Surprise Reaction Induced by Schema-Discrepant Visual and Auditory Events.Michael Niepel, Udo Rudolph, Achim Schützwohl & Wulf-Uwe Meyer - 1994 - Cognition and Emotion 8 (5):433-452.
  4.  4
    James and the Physical Basis of Emotion: A Comment on Ellsworth.Rainer Reisenzein, Wulf-Uwe Meyer & Achim Schützwohl - 1995 - Psychological Review 102 (4):757-761.
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  5.  14
    The Processing of Affectively Valenced Stimuli: The Role of Surprise.Achim Schützwohl & Kirsten Borgstedt - 2005 - Cognition and Emotion 19 (4):583-600.
  6.  4
    Approach and Avoidance During Routine Behavior and During Surprise in a Non-Evaluative Task: Surprise Matters and So Does the Valence of the Surprising Event.Achim Schützwohl - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
  7.  17
    How Willing Are You to Accept Sexual Requests From Slightly Unattractive to Exceptionally Attractive Imagined Requestors?Achim Schützwohl, Amrei Fuchs, William F. McKibbin & Todd K. Shackelford - 2009 - Human Nature 20 (3):282-293.
    In their classic study of differences in mating strategies, Clark and Hatfield (1989, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–54) found that men and women demonstrated a striking difference in interest in casual sex. The current study examined the role of an imagined requestor’s physical attractiveness (slightly unattractive, moderately attractive, and exceptionally attractive) on men’s and women’s willingness to accept three different requests (go out, come to apartment, go to bed) as reflected in answers to a questionnaire. We tested (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation