The Cognitive‐Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence [Book Review]

Topics in Cognitive Science 11 (1):50-74 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Research on surprise relevant to the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise proposed by Meyer, Reisenzein, and Schützwohl is reviewed. The majority of the assumptions of the model are found empirically supported. Surprise is evoked by unexpected events and its intensity is determined by the degree if schema-discrepancy, whereas the novelty and the valence of the eliciting events probably do not have an independent effect. Unexpected events cause an automatic interruption of ongoing mental processes that is followed by an attentional shift and attentional binding to the events, which is often followed by causal and other event analysis processes and by schema revision. The facial expression of surprise postulated by evolutionary emotion psychologists has been found to occur rarely in surprise, for as yet unknown reasons. A physiological orienting response marked by skin conductance increase, heart rate deceleration, and pupil dilation has been observed to occur regularly in the standard version of the repetition-change paradigm of surprise induction, but the specificity of these reactions as indicators of surprise is controversial. There is indirect evidence for the assumption that the feeling of surprise consists of the direct awareness of the schema-discrepancy signal, but this feeling, or at least the self-report of surprise, is also influenced by experienced interference. In contrast, facial feedback probably does contribute substantially to the feeling of surprise and the evidence for the hypothesis that surprise is affected by the difficulty of explaining an unexpected event is, in our view, inconclusive. Regardless of how the surprise feeling is constituted, there is evidence that it has both motivational and informational effects. Finally, the prediction failure implied by unexpected events sometimes causes a negative feeling, but there is no convincing evidence that this is always the case, and we argue that even if it were so, this would not be a sufficient reason for regarding this feeling as a component, rather than as an effect of surprise.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox.Ken Levy - 2009 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
Surprise, Surprise. [REVIEW]Michael Winterbottom - 1974 - The Classical Review 24 (2):218-219.
How can you be surprised? The case for volatile expectations.Roberto Casati & Elena Pasquinelli - 2007 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2):171-183.
The Metaphysics of Wonder and Surprise.R. V. Feldman - 1934 - Philosophy 9 (34):209 - 213.
Surprise, surprise.Daniel C. Dennett - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):982-982.
The argument from surprise.Adrian Currie - 2018 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48 (5):639-661.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-09-23

Downloads
57 (#268,918)

6 months
9 (#242,802)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

The expression of the emotions in man and animal.Charles Darwin - 1898 - Mineola, New York: Dover Publications.
A Treatise of Human Nature.David Hume & A. D. Lindsay - 1958 - Philosophical Quarterly 8 (33):379-380.
Towards a Cognitive Theory of Emotions.Keith Oatley & P. N. Johnson-Laird - 1987 - Cognition and Emotion 1 (1):29-50.
Free-Energy and the Brain.Karl J. Friston & Klaas E. Stephan - 2007 - Synthese 159 (3):417 - 458.

View all 29 references / Add more references