Cited by 1,366Face Recognition and PerceptionEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli.

Öhman, Arne, Lundqvist, Daniel, Esteves, Francisco·2001·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Schematic threatening, friendly, and neutral faces were used to test the hypothesis that humans preferentially orient their attention toward threat. Using a visual search paradigm, participants searched for discrepant faces in matrices of otherwise identical faces. Across 5 experiments, results consistently showed faster and more accurate detection of threatening than friendly targets. The threat advantage was obvious regardless of whether the conditions favored parallel or serial search (i.e., involved neutral or emotional distractors), and it was valid for inverted faces. Threatening angry faces were more quickly and accurately detected than were other negative faces (sad or "scheming"), which suggests that the threat advantage can be attributed to threat rather than to the negative valence or the uniqueness of the target display.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.381

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The threat-signaling stimulus may have been attended because its physical salience was not carefully controlled or because it was not associated with any costs for task performance or any influence on the aversive experience.

    “Similarly, the threat-signaling stimulus may have been attended because its physical salience was not carefully controlled (e.g., Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001; Schmidt et al., 2015a) or because it was not associated with any costs for task performance or any influence on the aversive experience (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2015b).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2001
Volume
80
Issue
3
Pages
381-396
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W1969756516
Cited by
1,366
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 76 · 2014: 89 · 2013: 94 · 2012: 83
FWCI
11.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
attentional bias, threat detection, schematic faces, angry faces, facial emotion recognition, visual search, inverted faces, emotional distractors
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anger, Attention, Emotions, Facial Expression, Female, Group Structure, Happiness, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, Social Perception, Sweden

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review