Strength of interconnections between schema elements and intensity of the emotion of surprise;Zum einfluß der verknüpfungsstärke von schemaelementen auf die stärke der überraschungsreaktion

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 45, Issue 4-1, 1998, Pages 203-217

  Horstmann, Gernot ^a   Schützwohl, Achim ^a  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Emotion; Schema; Schema discrepancy; Surprise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PROBLEM SOLVING; REACTION TIME; STARTLE REFLEX;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; REACTION TIME; STARTLE REACTION;

EID: 84858933349     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715-729.
2. Ahlert, S. (1995). Der Einfluß einfacher und komplexer schemadiskrepanfer Stimuli auf die Überraschungsreaktion. Diplomarbeit. Universität Bielefeld.
3. Charlesworth, W. R. (1964). Instigation and maintenance of curiosity behavior as a function of surprise versus novel and familiar stimuli. Child Development, 35, 119-128.
4. Crocker, J., Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Schematic bases of belief change. In R. Eiser (Ed.), Attitudinal judgment (pp. 197-226). New York: Springer.
5. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man ana animals. London: John Murray.
6. Desai, M. M. (1939). Surprise: A historical and experimental study. British Journal of Psychology, Monographs Supplement, 22.
7. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face. A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
8. Holyoak, K.J., Koh, K. K. & Nisbett, R. E. (1989). A theory of conditioning: Inductive learning within rule-based default hierarchies. Psvchological Review, 96, 315-340.
9. Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body. New York: Norton.
10. Mandler, G. (1985). Cognitive psychology. An essay in cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Meyer, W.-U. (1988). Die Rolle von Überraschung im Attributionsprozess. Psychologische Rundschau, 39, 136-147.
13. Meyer, W.-U. & Niepel, M. (1994). Surprise. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 353-358). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
14. Meyer, W.-U., Niepel, M., Rudolph U. & Schützwohl, A. (1991). An experimental analysis of surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 295-311.
15. Meyer, W.-U., Niepel, M. & Schützwohl, A. (1994). Überraschung und Attribution. In F. Försterling & J. Stiensmeier-Pelster (Hrsg.), Attributionstheorie: Grundlagen und Anwendungen (S. 105-121). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
16. Meyer, W.-U., Reisenzein, R. & Schützwohl, A. (1995). A process model of surprise. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Universität Bielefeld.
17. Meyer, W.-U., Reisenzein, R. & Schützwohl, A. (1997). Towards a process analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 251-274.
18. Niepel, M., Rudolph U., Schützwohl, A. & Meyer, W.-U. (1994). Temporal characteristics of the surprise reaction induced by schema-discrepant visual and auditory events. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 433-452.
19. Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Rumelhart, D. E. & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 161-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Schützwohl, A. (1998). Schema discrepancy effects on two surprise components. Manuskript in Vorbereitung.
24. Schützwohl, A. (im Druck). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition.
25. Schützwohl, A. & Horstmann, G. (im Druck). Überraschung, Handlungsunterbrechung und Schemarevision. In M. Jerusalem & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion, Motivation und Leistung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
26. Schützwohl, A. & Reisenzein, R. (in Druck). Children's and adults' reactions to a schema-discrepant event: A developmental analysis of surprise. International Journal of Behavioral Development.
27. Siddle, D. A. T. (1991). Orienting, habituation, and resource allocation: An associative analysis. Psychophysiology, 28, 245-259.
28. Sokolov, E. N. (1990). The orienting response, and future directions of its development. Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 25, 142-150.
29. Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Martini, A. & Reisenzein, R. (1995). The role of surprise in the attribution process. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 5-31.
30. Wagner, A. R. (1978). Expectancies and the priming of STM. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in animal behavior (pp. 177-209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Waldmann, M. R. (1990). Schema und Gedächtnis. Das Zusammenwirken von Raum- und Ereignisschemata beim Gedächtnis für Alltagssituationen. Heidelberg: Asanger.
32. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer Verlag.