Literature DB >> 33356873

The dynamic process of ambiguous emotion perception.

Maital Neta1, Michael M Berkebile2, Jonathan B Freeman2.   

Abstract

Everyday social interactions hinge on our ability to resolve uncertainty in nonverbal cues. For example, although some facial expressions (e.g. happy, angry) convey a clear affective meaning, others (e.g. surprise) are ambiguous, in that their meaning is determined by the context. Here, we used mouse-tracking to examine the underlying process of resolving uncertainty. Previous work has suggested an initial negativity, in part via faster response times for negative than positive ratings of surprise. We examined valence categorizations of filtered images in order to compare faster (low spatial frequencies; LSF) versus more deliberate processing (high spatial frequencies; HSF). When participants categorised faces as "positive", they first exhibited a partial attraction toward the competing ("negative") response option, and this effect was exacerbated for HSF than LSF faces. Thus, the effect of response conflict due to an initial negativity bias was exaggerated for HSF faces, likely because these images allow for greater deliberation than the LSFs. These results are consistent with the notion that more positive categorizations are characterised by an initial attraction to a default, negative response.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Emotion regulation; ambiguity; negativity bias; response conflict; trajectories

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33356873      PMCID: PMC8222422          DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2020.1862063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Emot        ISSN: 0269-9931


  19 in total

1.  What is emotion?

Authors:  Michel Cabanac
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  The NimStim set of facial expressions: judgments from untrained research participants.

Authors:  Nim Tottenham; James W Tanaka; Andrew C Leon; Thomas McCarry; Marcella Nurse; Todd A Hare; David J Marcus; Alissa Westerlund; B J Casey; Charles Nelson
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 3.222

3.  Don't like what you see? Give it time: Longer reaction times associated with increased positive affect.

Authors:  Maital Neta; Tien T Tong
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2016-04-07

Review 4.  The default response to uncertainty and the importance of perceived safety in anxiety and stress: An evolution-theoretical perspective.

Authors:  Jos F Brosschot; Bart Verkuil; Julian F Thayer
Journal:  J Anxiety Disord       Date:  2016-05-07

5.  Doing psychological science by hand.

Authors:  Jonathan B Freeman
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2018-08-13

6.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes.

Authors:  S L Zeger; K Y Liang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology.

Authors:  J J Gross
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1998-01

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

Authors:  Maital Neta; Catherine J Norris; Paul J Whalen
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2009-10

Review 9.  Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: a multi-level framework.

Authors:  Laura Martin Braunstein; James J Gross; Kevin N Ochsner
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Individual differences in valence bias: fMRI evidence of the initial negativity hypothesis.

Authors:  Nathan M Petro; Tien T Tong; Daniel J Henley; Maital Neta
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.436

View more
  3 in total

1.  How sign language expertise can influence the effects of face masks on non-linguistic characteristics.

Authors:  Wee Kiat Lau; Jana Chalupny; Klaudia Grote; Anke Huckauf
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-06-23

2.  Positivity effect in aging: evidence for the primacy of positive responses to emotional ambiguity.

Authors:  Nathan M Petro; Ruby Basyouni; Maital Neta
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 5.133

3.  Social connectedness and negative affect uniquely explain individual differences in response to emotional ambiguity.

Authors:  Maital Neta; Rebecca L Brock
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.