@misc{10481/80908,
year = {2023},
month = {2},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/10481/80908},
abstract = {Recent studies on fear conditioning and pain perception suggest that pictures of
loved ones (e.g., a romantic partner) may serve as a prepared safety cue that is less
likely to signal aversive events. Challenging this view, we examined whether pictures
of smiling or angry loved ones are better safety or threat cues. To this end, 47
healthy participants were verbally instructed that specific facial expressions (e.g.,
happy faces) cue threat of electric shocks and others cue safety (e.g., angry faces).
When facial images served as threat cues, they elicited distinct psychophysiological
defensive responses (e.g., increased threat ratings, startle reflex, and skin conductance
responses) compared to viewing safety cues. Interestingly, instructed
threat effects occurred regardless of the person who cued shock threat (partner
vs. unknown) and their facial expression (happy vs. angry). Taken together, these
results demonstrate the flexible nature of facial information (i.e., facial expression
and facial identity) to be easily learned as signals for threat or safety, even
when showing loved ones.},
organization = {Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
Grant/Award Number: BU 3255/1-2;},
organization = {Grant/Award Number: BU 3255/1-2;
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación,
Grant/Award Number: PID2020-119549GB-
I00},
publisher = {Wiley},
keywords = {Aversive learning},
keywords = {Facial expression},
keywords = {Romantic partner},
keywords = {Startle reflex},
keywords = {Threat-of-shock},
title = {A partner's smile is not per se a safety signal: Psychophysiological response patterns to instructed threat and safety},
doi = {10.1111/psyp.14273},
author = {Morato Gabao, Cristina and Guerra Muñoz, Pedro María},
}