Facial Expressions of Emotion: Are Angry Faces Detected More Efficiently?

By E. Fox, V. Lester, Riccardo Russo, R. J. Bowles, Alessio Pichler, Kevin Dutton. Cognition & Emotion, 2000

920 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2da6cce61dd4defa4c44e82d1e0bb9920ee193bb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Anxiety-related Bias in the Classification of Emotionally Ambiguous Facial Expressions (2002, background): “From a series of experiments in which schematic angry and happy faces were presented in congruent (same face– same emotion displays) or incongruent displays (e.g., an angry face among a neutral crowd), Fox et al. (2000) concluded that an angry facial expression is detected more efficiently than a ”
Not all emotions are created equal: the negativity bias in social-emotional development. (2008, background): “, Bohner, Bless, Schwarz, & Strack, 1988; Kellermann, 1984) have attempted to rule this out by manipulating the probability and the negativity of events independently and revealing a negativity bias even when the negative and positive events occurred equally frequently (see also Eastwood, Smilek, & ”
Preattentive face processing: What do visual search experiments with schematic faces tell us? (2007, result): “2008 Horstmann VC R final_proof_corrs_include d. oc faces. These results appear to suggest preattentive proc ssing in some way. The important point is that neither of these reports used standar d procedures to test preattentive processing. In contrast, efficient search is (together with eff ortless ”
What we fear most: A developmental advantage for threat-relevant stimuli (2013, background): “…angry faces more quickly than happy, neutral, or even sad faces (Calvo, Avero, & Lundqvist, 2006; Eastwood, Smilek, & Merikle, 2001; Esteves, 1999; Fox et al., 2000; Hansen & Hansen, 1988; LoBue, 2009; Lundqvist & Öhman, 2005; Schubo, Gendolla, Meinecke, & Abele, 2006; Tipples, Atkinson, & Young,…”
Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. (2005, background): “For example, behavioral studies suggest that we may be innately prepared to process anger expressions (e.g., Fox et al., 2000; Hansen & Hansen, 1988; O ¨ hman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001).”
The face in the crowd revisited: a threat advantage with schematic stimuli. (2001, methodology): “With one exception (Fox et al., 2000), previous visual search studies using schematic faces (Nothdurft, 1993; White, 1995, Experiments 1 and 2) have failed to observe differences in search times for discrepant emotion targets presented in upright or inverted displays.”
Theories and measurement of visual attentional processing in anxiety (2008, result): “In apparent contrast to the VA hypothesis, the AM hypothesis proposes that clinically anxious persons do not orient more rapidly to anxiety-inducing stimuli, but rather have their attention maintained by threat-relevant stimuli, such that they disengage from them more slowly (Derryberry & Reed, 200”
Electrophysiological correlates of rapid spatial orienting towards fearful faces. (2004, neutral): “, 2000), visual search (Hansen and Hansen, 1988; Fox et al., 2000; Eastwood et al., 2001; Öhman et al., 2001), stroop interference (Pratto and John, 1991; Williams et al.”
Do Threatening Stimuli Draw or Hold Visual Attention in Subclinical Anxiety? (2001, methodology): “We suggest the following proposal as a tentative model of the attentional mechanisms underlying anxiety (see also, Fox et al., 2000).”
Evolutionary derived modulations of attention to two common fear stimuli: Serpents and hostile humans (2012, methodology): “…unanimously supported by data from studies using schematic faces (see Figure 1) in a visual search setting (e.g., Calvo, Avero, & Lundqvist, 2006; Fox et al., 2000; Juth et al., 2005, Exp. 5; Lundqvist & Öhman, 2005; Mather & Knight, 2005; Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001; See Öhman, Juth, &…”
Biased recognition of happy facial expressions in social anxiety. (2006, neutral): “Research has found that angry faces have strong effects on the grabbing and holding of attention (Fox et al., 2000, 2001; Lundqvist et al., 1999; Tipples et al., 2002).”
Facilitated detection of angry faces: Initial orienting and processing efficiency (2006, background): “This is compatible with the facilitated detection effects found in prior studies, in which most of the faces in the displays seem to have appeared within the parafoveal vision field (Eastwood et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2000; Öhman et al., 2001; Tipples et al., 2002).”
The facilitated processing of threatening faces: an ERP analysis. (2004, background): “The hypothesis that threatening (schematic) faces are detected more quickly than nonthreatening faces has been studied recently with visual search tasks (Fox et al., 2000; Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001; Tipples, Atkinson, & Young, 2002).”
Does perceived direct gaze boost detection in adults and children with and without autism? The stare-in-the-crowd effect revisited (2005, methodology): “Because facial expression, as well as gaze direction, reportedly affects the search latency (Fox et al., 2000; Hansen & Hansen, 1988), the visual search paradigm may be a useful method for investigating human sensitivities to a variety of social cues.”
Angry faces hold the eyes (2011, background): “As the time to find an angry face is less affected by the number of stimuli present in the visual field than search for other facial expressions, this type of search is often classified as efficient (Fox et al., 2000; Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001).”
Interpreting ambiguous stimuli: Separating perceptual and judgmental biases. (2008, result): “At first glance, however, such an optimistic bias in basic perceptual processes seems to contradict findings showing a negativity bias in attention for social information (e.g., Fox et al., 2000; Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001; Pratto & John, 1990).”
The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing of emotional information (2010, result): “…Moss, Bradshaw, & Mattingley, 2005) information is both detected faster and is more distracting than neutral (Eastwood, Smilek, & Merikle, 2001; Fox et al., 2000; Juth, Karlsson, Lundqvist, & Ohman, 2000; Ohman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001a; Ohman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001b; but see Tipples,…”