The processing of affectively valenced stimuli: The role of surprise

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that the surprise mechanism activates a threat detection system that prioritises the processing of threat-related stimuli. In Experiment 1, participants responded to a dot that appeared during the presentation of two words. In the critical trial, one of the two words was either pleasant or unpleasant. In Experiment 2, depending on the condition, the participants had to decide whether at least one of two simultaneously presented pictures depicted either a pleasant or an unpleasant stimulus. In the critical trial, both a pleasant and an unpleasant picture appeared. In both experiments, the stimuli in the critical trial were presented either during routine behaviour or in the context of a surprising event. The results showed that during routine behaviour unpleasant stimuli received more attentive resources than pleasant stimuli only if the affective valence of the stimuli was action-relevant (Experiment 2). In contrast, in the context of surprise, unpleasant words engaged more attentive resources than pleasant words although they were action-irrelevant (Experiment 1). In addition, in the context of surprise, the decision time increase was more pronounced in the pleasant than in the unpleasant experimental group. This finding was interpreted as evidence that the threat detection system of the surprise mechanism initially searches for a threat-related stimulus.

[1]  C. Darwin The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals , .

[2]  A. Schützwohl,et al.  Surprise and schema strength. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  E. Fox,et al.  Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  W.-V. Meyer,et al.  Die Rolle von Überraschung im Attributionsprozess , 1988 .

[5]  A. Schützwohl,et al.  Surprise and schema strength , 1998 .

[6]  Roger,et al.  Mind and Body , 2008 .

[7]  Rainer Reisenzein,et al.  Children’s and Adults’ Reactions to a Schema-discrepant Event: A Developmental Analysis of Surprise , 1999 .

[8]  R. Hastie Causes and effects of causal attribution , 1984 .

[9]  Udo Rudolph,et al.  An experimental analysis of surprise , 1991 .

[10]  K. Mogg,et al.  Selective attention to threat: A test of two cognitive models of anxiety , 2000 .

[11]  C. MacLeod,et al.  Attentional bias in emotional disorders. , 1986, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[12]  Gernot Horstmann,et al.  Evidence for Attentional Capture by a Surprising Color Singleton in Visual Search , 2002, Psychological science.

[13]  R. Reisenzein Exploring the Strength of Association between the Components of Emotion Syndromes: The Case of Surprise , 2000 .

[14]  O. John,et al.  Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of negative social information. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  J. Eccles The emotional brain. , 1980, Bulletin et memoires de l'Academie royale de medecine de Belgique.

[16]  Alexander F. Shand,et al.  The foundations of character , 1914 .

[17]  E. Fox,et al.  Attentional bias for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces , 2002, Cognition & emotion.

[18]  Udo Rudolph,et al.  Temporal characteristics of the surprise reaction induced by schema-discrepant visual and auditory events , 1994 .

[19]  A. Ohman,et al.  Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  L. Kamin Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning , 1967 .

[21]  A. Mathews,et al.  Anxiety and Attention to Threatening Pictures , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[22]  M. White Automatic Affective Appraisal of Words , 1996 .

[23]  W. Meyer,et al.  Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise , 1997 .

[24]  R. Rescorla Pavlovian conditioning. It's not what you think it is. , 1988, The American psychologist.