Evidence on the coherence between emotion and facial expression in adults from laboratory experiments is reviewed. High coherence has been found in several studies between amusement and smiling; low to moderate coherence between other positive emotions and smiling. The available evidence for surprise and disgust suggests that these emotions are accompanied by their “traditional” facial expressions, and even components of these expressions, only in a minority of cases. Evidence concerning sadness, anger, and fear is very limited. For sadness, one study (...) suggests that high emotion–expression coherence may exist in specific situations, whereas for anger and fear, the evidence points to low coherence. Insufficient emotion intensity and inhibition of facial expressions seem unable to account for the observed dissociations between emotion and facial expression. (shrink)

The threat-advantage hypothesis that threatening or negative faces can be discriminated preattentively has often been tested in the visual search paradigm with schematic stimuli. The results have been heterogeneous, suggesting that the choice of particular stimuli have profound effects on search efficiency. Because this conclusion is hampered by differences in experimental procedure, I selected examples from past literature and presented replicas of stimulus pairs (schematic positive and negative faces) in a within-participants design. Although there was a consistent advantage for angry-face (...) targets, search efficiency varied between 8 and 35 ms/item, yielding no clear evidence for the threat-advantage hypothesis. Furthermore, search efficiency for negative- and positive-face targets was highly correlated over stimulus pairs, which implies that whatever complicates the search for the negative face of a pair also complicates the search for the positive face. This results pattern argues against the hypothesised preattentive detector. (shrink)

Cognitive and biological theories of emotion consider surprise as an emotional response to unexpected events. Four experiments examined the latency and the duration of one behavioural component of surprise: The interruption of ongoing action. Participants were presented with an unannounced visual event—the appearance of new perceptual objects—during the execution of a continuous action—a rapid alternate finger tapping—which allowed a precise measurement of the latency, and the duration of an action interruption induced by the surprising event. Of the participants, 78% interrupted (...) the tapping with a mean latency of 214 ms and a mean duration of 995 ms. Variations of the number and perceptual heterogeneity of the new objects revealed that the perceptual analysis of the surprising event contributes significantly to the interruption duration. (shrink)

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 (...) attentional binding to the events, which is often followed by causal and other event analysis processes and by schema revision. The facial expression of surprise postulated by evolutionary emotion psychologists has been found to occur rarely in surprise, for as yet unknown reasons. A physiological orienting response marked by skin conductance increase, heart rate deceleration, and pupil dilation has been observed to occur regularly in the standard version of the repetition-change paradigm of surprise induction, but the specificity of these reactions as indicators of surprise is controversial. There is indirect evidence for the assumption that the feeling of surprise consists of the direct awareness of the schema-discrepancy signal, but this feeling, or at least the self-report of surprise, is also influenced by experienced interference. In contrast, facial feedback probably does contribute substantially to the feeling of surprise and the evidence for the hypothesis that surprise is affected by the difficulty of explaining an unexpected event is, in our view, inconclusive. Regardless of how the surprise feeling is constituted, there is evidence that it has both motivational and informational effects. Finally, the prediction failure implied by unexpected events sometimes causes a negative feeling, but there is no convincing evidence that this is always the case, and we argue that even if it were so, this would not be a sufficient reason for regarding this feeling as a component, rather than as an effect of surprise. (shrink)