Biomedical subjects

A Schützwohl

Publications and source records attributed to A Schützwohl.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

[Structure and intensity of surprise].

Two experiments investigated the multicomponent theory of emotion intensity proposed by Frijda, Ortony, Sonnemans, and Clore (1992) in the case of surprise and compared it with the more traditional "feeling element" approach to emotion intensity. In both experiments the participants performed a choice reaction time task for a certain number of trials. In the last trial they were surprised by an unexpected change of appearance of the stimuli. In Experiment 1 the change concerned either an action-relevant or an action-irrelevant, affectively neutral stimulus. In Experiment 2 the change concerned either an affectively positive or an affectively negative stimulus. Response delay in the surprise trial served as the index of the interruption of ongoing processes caused by surprise. Immediately after the surprise trial the participants completed a surprise intensity questionnaire that was an adaptation of the general emotion intensity questionnaire used by Sonnemans and Frijda (1994). In contrast to the findings of Sonnemans and Frijda (1994), the present findings were consistently better in line with the traditional feeling element approach to emotion intensity than with the multicomponent theory. Possible reasons for the failure to support the multicomponent theory of emotion intensity for the case of surprise are considered.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Surprise and schema strength.

Through 4 experiments, the author investigated the effects of stimuli discrepant with schemas of varying strength on 3 components of surprise: the interruption of ongoing activities (indexed by response time increase), the focusing of attention on the schema-discrepant event (indexed by memory performance), and the feeling of surprise (indexed by self-reports). Response times were consistently found to increase with schema strength. This effect was attributed to the increasing difficulty of schema revision. In contrast, memory for the schema-discrepant event was not affected by schema strength, supporting the hypothesis that schema-discrepant stimuli are stored in memory with a distinct tag. Finally, self-reports of surprise intensity varied with schema strength only if they were made immediately after the surprising event without any intervening questions, suggesting that self-reports of surprise are highly susceptible to memory distortions.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

[Effect of associative strength of schema elements on intensity of startle reaction].

This study examined the effects of the strength of the connection between elements of an event schema on the surprise reaction elicited by a schema-discrepant event sequence. The strength of the connection between schema elements was manipulated by the probability of an event in an event sequence given that a certain sequence had preceded that event. Strong connections between schema elements were expected to result from repeated exposure to an invariant event sequence. Weak connections were expected to result from repeated exposure to a variable event sequence. The results showed that an unexpected deviation from a strong connection led to a longer reaction time delay to a probe stimulus as compared to a deviation from a weak connection. This finding is consistent with the assumption that the modification of a strong connection is more effortful than the modification of a weak connection. Furthermore, there was a tendency towards higher surprise ratings when the unexpected event deviated from a strong connection, indicating that the discrepancy is more severe. A second experiment showed that the schema had changed in response to the first presentation of the schema-discrepant event: A second presentation of the schema-discrepant event was rated as less surprising and led to a shorter reaction time delay as compared to the first presentation. Furthermore, the results indicated that the specific circumstances of the first presentation are taken into account when the schema is changed.

Adult↗

PubMed1991

[Determinants of pride and shame: outcome, expected success and attribution].

In two experiments we investigated the relationship between subjective probability of success and pride and shame. According to Atkinson (1957), pride (the incentive of success) is an inverse linear function of the probability of success, shame (the incentive of failure) being a negative linear function. Attribution theory predicts an inverse U-shaped relationship between subjective probability of success and pride and shame. The results presented here are at variance with both theories: Pride and shame do not vary with subjective probability of success. However, pride and shame are systematically correlated with internal attributions of action outcome.

Achievement↗