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

Abstract

The rapid detection of facial expressions of anger or threat has obvious adaptive value. In this study, we examined the efficiency of facial processing by means of a visual search task. Participants searched displays of schematic faces and were required to determine whether the faces displayed were all the same or whether one was different. Four main results were found: (1) When displays contained the same faces, people were slower in detecting the absence of a discrepant face when the faces displayed angry (or sad/angry) rather than happy expressions. (2) When displays contained a discrepant face people were faster in detecting this when the discrepant face displayed an angry rather than a happy expression. (3) Neither of these patterns for same and different displays was apparent when face displays were inverted, or when just the mouth was presented in isolation. (4) The search slopes for angry targets were significantly lower than for happy targets. These results suggest that detection of angry facial expressions is fast and efficient, although does not "pop-out" in the traditional sense.

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

“…Independent of the mechanism responsible for the effects observed in the current study the data show a pattern that is consistent with other studies looking at attention to emotional faces in 'normal' populations; namely facilitated processing of threat related stimuli (Ohman et al, 2001, Fox et al, 2000. This is in line with recent models of attention to threat which have suggested an attentional bias towards threat is a universal feature of human cognitive processing (Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998; and not just present in anxious individuals as was suggested previously (Eysenck, 1992).…”

“…Bradley et al 1997). It is even more surprising given the wealth of evidence using a variety of other paradigms that angry faces do indeed capture attention in normal, non-anxious populations (Ohman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001;Fox, Lester, Russo, Bowles, Pichler, & Dutton, 2000;Eastwood, Smilek, & Merikle, 2003;White, 1995).…”

Processing efficiency in anxiety: Evidence from eye-movements during visual search

“…For similar reasons several previous experiments have argued for a preference of schematic over real faces (e.g. Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001;Fox, Lester, Russo, et al, 2000;Tipples, Atkinson & Young, 2002).…”

Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in social-emotional development.

“…Specifically, if young infants typically had positive everyday interactions, then their evaluative neutral point, rather than being equidistant from positive and negative evaluations, would shift closer to positive evaluations; this would 7 Some researchers (e.g., 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, & Merikle, 2001;Fox et al, 2000;Hansen & Hansen, 1988;Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001;Pratto & John, 1991). Note, however, that if in our daily lives, we do generally experience more positive than negative outcomes, and negative outcomes do therefore stand out, then when faced with an artificial research situation in which there is an equal or higher probability of negative outcomes, we might nevertheless display a negativity bias (Baumeister et al, 2001;Taylor, 1991).…”