Corrugator Activity Confirms Immediate Negative Affect in Surprise

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2015 Mar 13

PMID 25762956

Citations 15

Authors

Sascha Topolinski

Fritz Strack

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The emotion of surprise entails a complex of immediate responses, such as cognitive interruption, attention allocation to, and more systematic processing of the surprising stimulus. All these processes serve the ultimate function to increase processing depth and thus cognitively master the surprising stimulus. The present account introduces phasic negative affect as the underlying mechanism responsible for this switch in operating mode. Surprising stimuli are schema-discrepant and thus entail cognitive disfluency, which elicits immediate negative affect. This affect in turn works like a phasic cognitive tuning switching the current processing mode from more automatic and heuristic to more systematic and reflective processing. Directly testing the initial elicitation of negative affect by surprising events, the present experiment presented high and low surprising neutral trivia statements to N = 28 participants while assessing their spontaneous facial expressions via facial electromyography. High compared to low surprising trivia elicited higher corrugator activity, indicative of negative affect and mental effort, while leaving zygomaticus (positive affect) and frontalis (cultural surprise expression) activity unaffected. Future research shall investigate the mediating role of negative affect in eliciting surprise-related outcomes.

Citing Articles

The face of illusory truth: Repetition of information elicits affective facial reactions predicting judgments of truth.

Stump A, Wustenberg T, Rouder J, Voss A Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2025; .

PMID: 40011403 DOI: 10.3758/s13415-025-01266-4.

The preference for surprise in reinforcement learning underlies the differences in developmental changes in risk preference between autistic and neurotypical youth.

Sumiya M, Katahira K, Akechi H, Senju A Mol Autism. 2025; 16(1):3.

PMID: 39819491 PMC: 11740557. DOI: 10.1186/s13229-025-00637-5.

Contradictory findings in the study of emotional false memory: a review on the inadvisability of controlling valence and arousal.

Yin H, Zhou Y, Li Z Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1380742.

PMID: 38863666 PMC: 11165708. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380742.

Easy to process, hard to control: Transient and sustained processing fluency impairs cognitive control adjustments to conflict.

Oliveira G, Remondes M, Garcia-Marques T Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023; 76(11):2524-2534.

PMID: 36803030 PMC: 10585938. DOI: 10.1177/17470218231159787.

A New Explanation for the Frog-in-the-Pan Phenomenon Based on the Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise.

Liang D, Liu M, Fu Y, Sun J, Wang H Behav Sci (Basel). 2023; 13(1).

PMID: 36661579 PMC: 9854531. DOI: 10.3390/bs13010007.

References

Dimberg U, Thunberg M, Elmehed K . Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Psychol Sci. 2001; 11(1):86-9. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00221. View

Winkielman P, Cacioppo J . Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 81(6):989-1000. View

Baumann N, Kuhl J . Intuition, affect, and personality: unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 83(5):1213-23. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1213. View

Russell J . Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol Rev. 2003; 110(1):145-72. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.145. View

Teigen K, Keren G . Surprises: low probabilities or high contrasts?. Cognition. 2003; 87(2):55-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00201-9. View

Ruder M, Bless H . Mood and the reliance on the ease of retrieval heuristic. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 85(1):20-32. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.20. View

Pezzo M . Surprise, defence, or making sense: what removes hindsight bias?. Memory. 2003; 11(4-5):421-41. DOI: 10.1080/09658210244000603. View

Cohen B, Davidson R, Senulis J, Saron C, Weisman D . Muscle tension patterns during auditory attention. Biol Psychol. 1992; 33(2-3):133-56. DOI: 10.1016/0301-0511(92)90028-s. View

Strack F, Deutsch R . Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004; 8(3):220-47. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1. View

10.

Scherer K, Zentner M, Stern D . Beyond surprise: the puzzle of infants' expressive reactions to expectancy violation. Emotion. 2004; 4(4):389-402. DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.4.4.389. View

11.

Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P . Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004; 8(4):364-82. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3. View

12.

Reisenzein R, Bordgen S, Holtbernd T, Matz D . Evidence for strong dissociation between emotion and facial displays: the case of surprise. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006; 91(2):295-315. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.295. View

13.

Scherer K, Ellgring H . Are facial expressions of emotion produced by categorical affect programs or dynamically driven by appraisal?. Emotion. 2007; 7(1):113-130. DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.113. View

14.

Mendes W, Blascovich J, Hunter S, Lickel B, Jost J . Threatened by the unexpected: physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007; 92(4):698-716. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.698. View

15.

Alter A, Oppenheimer D, Epley N, Eyre R . Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007; 136(4):569-76. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569. View

16.

Fontaine J, Scherer K, Roesch E, Ellsworth P . The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychol Sci. 2007; 18(12):1050-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02024.x. View

17.

Hajcak G, Foti D . Errors are aversive: defensive motivation and the error-related negativity. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19(2):103-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02053.x. View

18.

Topolinski S, Strack F . Scanning the "Fringe" of consciousness: what is felt and what is not felt in intuitions about semantic coherence. Conscious Cogn. 2008; 18(3):608-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.06.002. View

19.

Topolinski S, Strack F . The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009; 138(1):39-63. DOI: 10.1037/a0014678. View

20.

Topolinski S, Strack F . Motormouth: mere exposure depends on stimulus-specific motor simulations. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009; 35(2):423-33. DOI: 10.1037/a0014504. View