The eyebrow frown: A salient social signal.

Abstract

Seven experiments investigated the finding that threatening schematic faces are detected more quickly than nonthreatening faces. Threatening faces with v-shaped eyebrows (angry and scheming expressions) were detected more quickly than nonthreatening faces with inverted v-shaped eyebrows (happy and sad expressions). In contrast to the hypothesis that these effects were due to perceptual features unrelated to the face, no advantage was found for v-shaped eyebrows presented in a nonfacelike object. Furthermore, the addition of internal facial features (the eyes, or the nose and mouth) was necessary to produce the detection advantage for faces with v-shaped eyebrows. Overall, the results are interpreted as showing that the v-shaped eyebrow configuration affords easy detection, but only when other internal facial features are present.

Psychophysiological correlates of face processing in social phobia

“…The faster detection of happy faces when subjects' task was to identify the emotion of a facial expression seems in conflict with previous studies showing advantageous processing of negative faces or fear relevant stimuli as compared to positive faces or neutral objects, respectively (e.g., Fox et al, 2000;Hansen and Hansen, 1988;Öhman et al, 2001;Tipples et al, 2002). Yet, several studies reported faster categorization of happy faces than expressions of anger (Billings et al, 1993;Harrison et al, 1990;Hugdahl et al, 1993;Kaufmann and Schweinberger, 2004;Leppänen et al, 2003), disgust (Leppänen et al, 2003;Stalans and Wedding, 1985), sadness (Kirita and Endo, 1995;Stanners et al, 1985), or emotionally neutral faces (Hugdahl et al, 1993;Schweinberger et al, 2003).…”

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).…”

Preattentive face processing: What do visual search experiments with schematic faces tell us?

“…A number of experiments, using different methods, have examined the hypothesized preattentive processing of facial affect (e.g., Eastwood et al, 2001;Fenske & Eastwood, 2003;Fox et al, 2000;Hansen & Hansen, 1988;Horstmann & Bauland, 2006;Horstmann, Borgstedt & Heumann, 2006;Horstmann, Scharlau & Ansorge, 2006;Nothdurft, 1993;Öhman et al, 2001;Schubö, Gendolla, Meinecke, & Able, 2006;Tipples, Atkinson, & Young, 2002;White, 1995;Williams, Moss, Bradshaw, & Mattingley, 2005; for a short overview of the different paradigms and the typical results see Horstmann, Borgstedt, & Heumann, 2006). The present paper focuses on experiments with the search asymmetry design, which has been used most extensively, and which tests the preattenitve threatadvantage hypothesis most directly.…”

“…The present paper focuses on experiments with the search asymmetry design, which has been used most extensively, and which tests the preattenitve threatadvantage hypothesis most directly. In addition to these, there are a number of visual search studies on facial expressions that did not vary set size and thus cannot answer the question of preattentive processing (e.g., Tipples et al, 2002); in short, these studies consistently reveal shorter response latencies to angry or negative faces. A few other visual search studies tested positive and negative faces within neutral crowds (e.g., Eastwood et al, 2001;Williams et al, 2005).…”