Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/15046
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSchutzwohl, A-
dc.contributor.authorReisenzein, R-
dc.contributor.authorHorstmann, G-
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-22T13:30:25Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-22T13:30:25Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationTopics in Cognitive Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.issn1756-8757-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/15046-
dc.description.abstractResearch on surprise relevant to the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise proposed by Meyer, Reisenzein, and Schützwohl (1997) is reviewed. The majority of the assumptions of the model are found empirically supported. Surprise is evoked by unexpected (schema-discrepant) events, whereas the novelty and the valence of the eliciting events probably do not have an independent effect. Unexpected events cause an automatic interruption of mental processing that is followed by 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 regularly occur 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 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 evokes a negative feeling, but there is as yet 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleThe Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidenceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.relation.isPartOfTopics in Cognitive Science-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Health Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdfEmbargoed until 12 months after publication329.56 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.