Corrugator muscle responses are associated with individual differences in positivity-negativity bias.

Corrugator supercilii muscle activity is considered an objective measure of valence because it increases in response to negatively valenced facial expressions (angry) and decreases to positive expressions (happy). The authors sought to determine if corrugator activity could be used as an objective measure of positivity-negativity bias. The authors recorded corrugator responses as participants rated angry, happy, and surprised faces as “positive” or “negative.” The critical measure of bias was the percentage of positive versus negative ratings assigned to surprised faces by each participant. Reaction times for surprise expressions were longer than for happy and angry expressions, consistent with their ambiguous valence. Participants who tended to rate surprised faces as negative showed increased corrugator activity to surprised faces, whereas those who tended to rate surprise as positive showed decreased activity. Critically, corrugator responses reflected the participants’ bias (i.e., their tendency to rate surprise as positive or negative). These data show that surprised faces constitute a useful tool for assessing individual differences in positivity-negativity bias, and that corrugator activity can objectively reflect this bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Surprise, memory, and retrospective judgment making: Testing cognitive reconstruction theories of the hindsight bias effect.

Hindsight bias has been shown to be a pervasive and potentially harmful decision-making bias. A review of 4 competing cognitive reconstruction theories of hindsight bias revealed conflicting predictions about the role and effect of expectation or surprise in retrospective judgment formation. Two experiments tested these predictions examining the effects of manipulating the information presented in a text-based scenario and its congruency with the given outcome on surprise, hindsight bias, and recall. The results of Experiment 1 revealed evidence of hindsight bias after exposure to incongruent and ambivalent outcomes but not after exposure to congruent outcomes. Experiment 2 replicated the hindsight bias results and found that the ratio of outcome consistent information recalled was higher than expected in the incongruent and ambivalent conditions but equaled the ratio presented to participants in the congruent condition. The results were interpreted as supporting the general predictions of sense-making models of the hindsight bias. A refined version of this model is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Professional decisions: responsibilities

The responsibilities which civil engineers, and particularly the engineer of record, accept are considered. The interaction with other decision-makers such as the owner, stakeholders, the law and contractors results in complexity that can be partially resolved by the introduction of protocols in the form of regulations and codes of practice. However, uncertainty always exists and can result in surprises that can produce both beneficial and bad results. The sections entitled the cast, protocols and reality, advocacy and surprise, and complexity cover these topics. The nature of responsibility is analysed. Professional engineers work within an increasingly complex environment and have a responsibility to acquire and use skills beyond those applicable to traditional technical issues.     

Evidence for strong dissociation between emotion and facial displays: The case of surprise.

Eight experiments examined facial expressions of surprise in adults. Surprise was induced by disconfirming a previously established schema or expectancy. Self-reports and behavioral measures indicated the presence of surprise in most participants, but surprise expressions were observed only in 4%-25%, and most displays consisted of eyebrow raising only; the full, 3-component display was never seen. Experimental variations of surprise intensity, sociality, and duration/complexity of the surprising event did not change these results. Electromyographic measurement failed to detect notably more brow raisings and, in one study, revealed a decrease of frontalis muscle activity in the majority of the participants. Nonetheless, most participants believed that they had shown a strong surprise expression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the expression and experience of surprise: No evidence for facial feedback, but evidence for a reverse self-inference effect.

Three studies examined the effects of experimentally manipulated surprise expressions on the experience of surprise. Surprise was induced by a sudden, unannounced change of the stimulus presentation during a computerized task. Facial expression was manipulated by leading participants to adopt an expression akin to surprise, or by forcing them to look up steeply to a monitor. The expression manipulations had no intensifying effect on the experience of surprise, whereas manipulations of unexpectedness and mental load had strong effects. In addition, mental load was found to affect beliefs about facial expression, suggesting that the participants used their feelings of surprise to infer their probable facial displays. Path analyses supported this reverse self-inference hypothesis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reflections on a profession: What's in a name?

A profession's self-identifying label has a normative effect on its practitioners. This article briefly explores the consequences of the term psychoanalyst and discusses some of the inherent contradictions in its use in clinical practice. The need for human beings to talk to and to listen to each other is explored, and the import for both participants is discussed and placed within an historical context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attentional Capture by an Unannounced Color Singleton Depends on Expectation Discrepancy.

Eight experiments examined the conditions under which a color singleton that is presented for the 1st time without prior announcement captures attention. The main hypothesis is that an unannounced singleton captures attention to the extent that it deviates from expectations. This hypothesis was tested within a visual-search paradigm in which set-size effects were used to infer attentional capture. The results showed that attentional capture by an unannounced color singleton was due to a mismatch with expectations concerning the color of the object and not due to its being a singleton. Thus, the results imply that theories of attention have to consider expectation discrepancy as a determinant of attention shifts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Unblocking in Pavlovian fear conditioning.

Six experiments used rats to study blocking and unblocking of fear learning. An excitatory stimulus (A) blocked fear learning to a neutral stimulus (B). Unblocking of B occurred if the AB compound signaled an increase in unconditioned stimulus (US) intensity or number. Assessments of associative change during blocking showed that more was learned about B than A. Such assessments during unblocking revealed that more was learned about B than A following an increase in US intensity but not US number. These US manipulations had no differential effects on single-cue learning. The results show that variations in US intensity or number produce unblocking of fear learning, but for each there is a different profile of associative change and a potentially different mechanism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can children recognize pride?

Recent research has shown that pride, like the "basic" emotions of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise, has a distinct, nonverbal expression that can be recognized by adults (J. L. Tracy & R. W. Robins, 2004b). In 2 experiments, the authors examined whether young children can identify the pride expression and distinguish it from expressions of happiness and surprise. Results suggest that (a) children can recognize pride at above-chance levels by age 4 years; (b) children recognize pride as well as they recognize happiness; (c) pride recognition, like happiness and surprise recognition, improves from age 3 to 7 years; and (d) children's ability to recognize pride cannot be accounted for by the use of a process of elimination (i.e., an exclusion rule) to identify an unknown entity. These findings have implications for the development of emotion recognition and children's ability to perceive and communicate pride. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Making sense of surprise: An investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments.

Surprise is often defined in terms of disconfirmed expectations, whereby the surprisingness of an event is thought to be dependent on the degree to which it contrasts with a more likely, or expected, outcome. The authors investigated the alternative hypothesis that surprise is more accurately modeled as a manifestation of an ongoing sense-making process. In a series of experiments, participants were given a number of scenarios and rated surprise and probability for various hypothetical outcomes that either confirmed or disconfirmed an expectation. Experiment 1 demonstrated that representational specificity influences the relationship that holds between surprise and probability ratings. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the inclusion of an enabling event lowers surprise ratings for disconfirming outcomes. Experiment 3 explored the reason for this effect, revealing that enabling events lower surprise by reducing uncertainty, thus enhancing ease of integration. Experiment 4 evaluated the contrast hypothesis directly, showing that differences in contrast are not correlated with differences in surprise. These results provide converging support for the view that the level of surprise experienced for an event is related to the difficulty of integrating that event with an existing representation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)