Facial expressions in response to a highly surprising event exceeding the field of vision: a test of Darwin's theory of surprise

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.According to the affect program theory of facial displays, the evolutionary core of the human emotion system consists of a small set of discrete emotion mechanisms that comprise motor programs for emotion-specific facial displays. However, research on surprise has found that surprising events often fail to elicit the associated facial expression (widened eyes, raised eyebrows, mouth opening). The present study tested a refined Darwinian account of the facial expression of surprise, according to which surprising events cause widened eyes and raised eyebrows if they exceed the field of vision, as these facial changes increase the visual field and facilitate visual search. To test this hypothesis, we staged a surprising event that engulfed the field of vision: When the participants left the laboratory, they unexpectedly found themselves in a new room, a small chamber with bold green walls and a red office chair. In addition, to explore the role of social context for the expression of surprise, in two of three experimental conditions, a stranger or a friend they had brought to the experiment was sitting on the chair. The results provided no support for the Darwinian account of the facial expression of surprise. A complete expression of surprise was observed in 5% of the participants, and the individual components of the expression were shown only by a minority, regardless of social context. These findings reinforce doubts about the adequacy of affect program theory for the case of surprise

How willing are you to accept sexual requests from slightly unattractive to exceptionally attractive imagined requestors?

This is the post print version of the article. The official published version can be accessed from the link below.In their classic study of differences in mating strategies (Clark & Hatfield, 1989), men and women demonstrated a striking difference in interest in casual sex. The current study examined the role of requestor 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) in a questionnaire study. We tested two hypotheses, using a sample of 427 men and 443 women from three countries. Hypothesis 1 states that men, relative to women, will demonstrate a greater willingness to accept the “come to apartment” and “go to bed” requests but not the “go out” request for all three levels of requestor attractiveness. This hypothesis reflects Clark and Hatfield's (1989) main findings. Hypothesis 2 states that the physical attractiveness of a potential partner will have a greater effect on women's than on men's willingness to accept all three requests, and particularly for the explicit request for casual sex. The results partially supported Hypothesis 1 and fully supported Hypothesis 2. The discussion highlights limitations of the current research and presents directions for future research

Decision Strategies in Continuous Ratings of Jealousy Feelings Elicited by Sexual and Emotional Infidelity

Two studies (total N = 689) tested the assumption of DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, and Salovey (2002) that sex differences in jealousy predicted by the evolutionary view are an artifact of measurement because they are restricted to a forced-choice response format and do not emerge when using continuous jealousy ratings. In Study 1, men and women rated how much a mate's emotional and sexual infidelity contributed to their jealousy feeling. In Study 2, men and women rated the intensity of their jealousy feeling elicited by a mate's emotional and sexual infidelity. In one condition they were asked to make their ratings spontaneously whereas in the other condition they were instructed to make their ratings only after careful consideration. The results of both studies lend no support for the artifact-of-measurement assumption. The implications of the present finding for the assumption of DeSteno et al. (2002) are discussed

Which Infidelity Type Makes You More Jealous? Decision Strategies in a Forced-Choice between Sexual and Emotional Infidelity

This study tested the prediction derived from the evolutionary psychological analysis of jealousy that men and women selecting the adaptively primary infidelity type (i.e., female sexual and male emotional infidelity, respectively) in a forced-choice response format need to engage in less elaborate decision strategies than men and women selecting the adaptively secondary infidelity type (i.e., male sexual and female emotional infidelity, respectively). Unknown to the participants, decision times were registered as an index of the elaborateness of their decision strategies. The results clearly support the prediction. Implications and limitations of the present findings are discussed

Surprise and schema strength.

Interior, general vie

The cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise. A review of the evidence

Reisenzein R, Horstmann G, Schützwohl A. The cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise. A review of the evidence. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2019;11(1):50-74.Research on surprise relevant to the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise proposed by Meyer, Reisenzein, and Schutzwohl (1997) is reviewed. The majority of the assumptions of the model are found empirically supported. Surprise is evoked by unexpected (schema-discrepant) 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. This paper reviews evidence regarding the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise: Surprise is evoked by unexpected events, causing automatic interruption of mental processes, and its intensity is determined by the degree of discrepancy from current schemas. The authors discuss evidence regarding the roles of physiological responses and direct awareness of the schema-discrepancy signal, but argue that, regardless of how surprise is constituted, there is evidence that it has both motivational and informational effects

Spatial Distance Regulates Sex-Specific Feelings to Suspected Sexual and Emotional Infidelity

The present study investigates the hitherto neglected influence of the spatial distance between the jealous person, the partner, and a potential rival as a proximate contextual factor regulating emotion intensity. The study tested four predictions. (1) The jealousy mechanism responds with mild negative feelings at most as long as the partner is close to the jealous person. (2) The negative feelings increase when the partner is far from the jealous person but the rival is close. (3) The most uncomfortable feelings result when the partner and the rival are close together and both far from the jealous person. (4) Based on the evolutionary psychological considerations, men report stronger negative feelings than women when suspecting sexual infidelity. Conversely, women report stronger negative feelings than men when suspecting emotional infidelity. The results confirmed predictions 1 and 4. Reversing predictions 2 and 3, the close rival consistently elicited the most uncomfortable feelings. Implications and limitations of the present study are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided