Verbal instructions override the meaning of facial expressions

Abstract

Abstract Psychological research has long acknowledged that facial expressions can implicitly trigger affective psychophysiological responses. However, whether verbal information can alter the meaning of facial emotions and corresponding response patterns has not been tested. This study examined emotional facial expressions as cues for instructed threat-of-shock or safety, with a focus on defensive responding. In addition, reversal instructions were introduced to test the impact of explicit safety instructions on fear extinction. Forty participants were instructed that they would receive unpleasant electric shocks, for instance, when viewing happy but not angry faces. In a second block, instructions were reversed (e.g., now angry faces cued shock). Happy, neutral, and angry faces were repeatedly presented, and auditory startle probes were delivered in half of the trials. The defensive startle reflex was potentiated for threat compared to safety cues. Importantly, this effect occurred regardless of whether threat was cued by happy or angry expressions. Although the typical pattern of response habituation was observed, defense activation to newly instructed threat cues remained significantly enhanced in the second part of the experiment, and it was more pronounced in more socially anxious participants. Thus, anxious individuals did not exhibit more pronounced defense activation compared to less anxious participants, but their defense activation was more persistent.

Full text

1
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Verbal instructions override the
meaning of facial expressions
Florian Bublatzky1,2, Pedro Guerra3 & Georg W. Alpers2
Psychological research has long acknowledged that facial expressions can implicitly trigger aective
psychophysiological responses. However, whether verbal information can alter the meaning of facial
emotions and corresponding response patterns has not been tested. This study examined emotional
facial expressions as cues for instructed threat-of-shock or safety, with a focus on defensive responding.
In addition, reversal instructions were introduced to test the impact of explicit safety instructions on
fear extinction. Forty participants were instructed that they would receive unpleasant electric shocks,
for instance, when viewing happy but not angry faces. In a second block, instructions were reversed
(e.g., now angry faces cued shock). Happy, neutral, and angry faces were repeatedly presented, and
auditory startle probes were delivered in half of the trials. The defensive startle reex was potentiated
for threat compared to safety cues. Importantly, this eect occurred regardless of whether threat
was cued by happy or angry expressions. Although the typical pattern of response habituation was
observed, defense activation to newly instructed threat cues remained signicantly enhanced in the
second part of the experiment, and it was more pronounced in more socially anxious participants.
Thus, anxious individuals did not exhibit more pronounced defense activation compared to less anxious
participants, but their defense activation was more persistent.
e ability to communicate about future events and their potential consequences is highly advantageous for gain-
ing benets and avoiding danger. Such vital information can be transmitted using non-verbal communication
(e.g., facial expressions, body posture)1,2, but also via verbal or written instructions (e.g., ‘beware of …’). Both
sources of information – visual facial expressions and language – have been shown to eectively modulate the
activity of motivational systems in the brain, to prepare for adequate responding in a given situation3–7. However,
to what degree facial expressions and verbal instructions interact in guiding person perception and social behav-
ior is not well-understood.
ere is a strong body of research examining the role of facial expressions and their capability to mediate
perceptual processing and behavioral responding in social situations. Viewing threat-related emotional expres-
sions – such as fear or anger – has been shown to be associated with enhanced activation of the autonomous
nervous system and speeded behavioral responding8–10. Similarly, happy facial expressions have been suggested to
receive preferential access to attentional processing resources compared to neutral faces. For instance, happy faces
have been linked to better detection rates11,12 and facilitated electrocortical processing (e.g., LPP component)13.
However, observing unknown people who smile might also be more ambivalent as their actual intention remains
uncertain5,14. Together, these psychophysiological response patterns have been suggested to reect the work-
ings of basic motivational systems that organize behavioral approach or withdrawal (e.g., defense behavior)15,16.
Accordingly, facial expressions of emotion are presumed to be evolutionarily prepared to receive more attentional
resources and prime emotion-specic motor-behavioral responding10,17.
Language is another evolutionary prepared communication system. Aective language, such as insults or
compliments, is especially eective at catching the listeners’ attention. is is particularly evident when infor-
mation directly refers to the listener or reader18–20. Accordingly, verbal instructions about imminent aversive
events (threat-of-shock) eectively enhance perceptual processing21–23, defensive activation4,7,24,25, and modulate
overt behavioral responding (e.g., in decision-making tasks)26,27. Importantly, this verbal information does not
need to be substantiated by rst-hand experiences of the anticipated aversive events. For instance, despite the
lack of aversive reinforcement, instructed threat contingencies are very resistant to extinction even across several
1Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health Mannheim, Medical
Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. 2Clinical Psychology and Biological Psychology
and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim,
Germany. 3University of Granada, Department of Personality, Granada, Spain. Correspondence and requests for
materials should be addressed to F.B. (email: orian.bublatzky@zi-mannheim.de)
Received: 28 February 2018
Accepted: 17 September 2018
Published: xx xx xxxx
OPEN
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
2
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
days28. However, verbal instructions can reverse threat expectancies, for instance, when an instructed threat cue
is newly learned as a safety cue29–31. Given the centrality of threat perception for interpersonal relations and social
behavior, associations between threatening events and facial information might be malleable and exibly change
according to social settings.
e present study examined the joint impact of visual and verbal aective information on defensive respond-
ing. To this end, pictures of happy and angry facial expressions were verbally instructed as cues for the threat of
electric shocks or safety. As dependent variables, we chose both somatic (startle reex) and autonomic indices
(skin conductance response [SCR] and heart rate [HR]), which have been shown to be sensitive to facial expres-
sions and verbal instructions5,9,24. In addition to physiological measures, we also obtained subjective ratings about
the perceived threat, aective valence, and emotional arousal. Following two previous studies that used pictures of
aective scenes as shock cues (i.e., pleasant and unpleasant IAPS pictures)24,32, threat instructions were predicted
to change the inherent valence of facial expressions. is should be evinced by threat-potentiated startle reex,
enhanced SCRs, and potentiated initial HR deceleration, as well as higher threat ratings for threat-of-shock rela-
tive to safety cues4,7,24,25.
Focusing on the interaction of facial emotions and verbal threat/safety instructions, the congruency of
aective information (e.g., an angry face instructed to signal shock threat compared to safety) was of particular
interest. According to the motivational priming theory15,16, an interaction of threat/safety instruction by facial
expression was expected: When serving as a threat cue, inherently unpleasant stimuli (i.e., angry faces) will elicit
more pronounced defensive responding than inherently pleasant stimuli (i.e., happy faces). Alternatively, incon-
gruent information might be particularly eective in guiding defense activation to unknown people. For instance,
a smiling person instructed to signal shocks may be considered as particularly dangerous14, with implications for
social interactions and behavior towards this person (e.g., impression formation, social bonding)33,34.
Also, we expected to gain insight into the malleability of instruction eects by examining reversal learning.
Reversal learning reects the shi of threat associations from one stimulus to another, with the concurrent inhi-
bition (previous threat cue becomes safe) and acquisition of threat contingencies (a previous safety cue becomes
threatening)35. To this end, a second experimental block was preceded by additional instructions, which aimed
at reversing previously learned threat/safety contingencies (e.g., from threat to safety or vice versa)36,37. Here,
it is of interest whether the impact of reversal instructions on fear extinction learning depends on prepared
learning mechanisms in person perception36. Specically, we examined whether threat eects were more stable
when angry (relative to happy) faces served as reversed safety cues (i.e., previously cueing threat). Moreover, we
predicted that pleasant facial expressions might be less eective as a threat cue37, or that they are more quickly
associated with safety in the reversal test.
Methods
Participants. Sample size was determined using G*Power38, which indicated that N = 40 was required to
detect all relevant physiological eects at a medium eect size (f = 0.25, α error = 0.05, power = 0.8, and assumed
correlation of repeated measures = 0.4). is stop rule for data collection was also in line with previous star-
tle studies using emotional facial expression and threat-of-shock instructions3,24,30. Forty healthy volunteers
(10 males) were recruited from the students of the psychology department at the University of Mannheim.
Participants’ age ranged between 17 and 52 (M = 22.7, SD = 7.1) and the sample was within the normal range of
state and trait anxiety (STAI, M = 35.3 and 35.1, SD = 5.8 and 8.8), social anxiety (SPIN, M = 10.9, SD = 8.2), and
depression (BDI, M = 5.9, SD = 6.5). All participants were informed about the general study procedure before
informed consent was obtained. e ethical review committee of the University of Mannheim approved all uti-
lized procedures and methods. Participants received course credits for their participation.
Stimulus materials and presentation. Face pictures were selected from the Karolinska Directed
Emotional Faces (KDEF39), a well-established stimulus set providing pictures of human facial expressions of
emotion. Sixteen actors (eight females) displaying happy, neutral, and angry facial expressions, were selected
based on visual inspection (i.e., seven raters agreed upon the clarity and recognizability of facial expressions). e
KDEF face identiers were af01, af07, af09, af11, af19, af20, af22, af29, am02, am03, am07, am08, am10, am13,
am14, and am25.
All 48 pictures (1024 × 768 pixels) were presented for 6 s separated by variable inter-trial intervals (ITI) rang-
ing from 10 to 15 s to allow response recovery (see Fig.1). To provoke the defensive startle reex, auditory startle
probes (white noise, 105 dB, 50 ms) were presented during half of the picture trials. e 48 pictures (including the
24 picture-startle trials) were evenly distributed across two experimental blocks (instantiation, reversal) and three
facial expressions (happy, neutral, angry), resulting in four picture-startle trials for each experimental condition
per participant. To prevent the predictability of auditory stimulation, startle probes were presented at either 4,
4.5, 5 or 5.5 s aer picture onset (i.e., while the picture was still visible), and six additional startle probes (three
per block) were presented during the ITI. Startle probes were presented binaurally using headphones (AKG K44
Perception) and the average lag between probes was 28.8 s.
Presentation soware (Neurobehavioral Systems, Inc., Albany, CA, USA) served to control the stimulus pres-
entation, which was pseudorandom regarding picture sequence (no immediate repetition of the same face actor,
no more than three pictures of the same facial expression in a row) and regarding startle presentation (no more
than two picture-startle trials in a row). Electric stimuli for the shock work-up procedure were presented using a
Digitimer Stimulator DS-5 (up to 10 shocks, with maximal 10 mA, 100 ms).
Experimental task and instructions. Participants’ task was to look at all pictures, which were presented
during the two experimental blocks (instantiation and reversal; see Fig.1). Immediately before the rst block
started (instantiation), participants were verbally instructed that they might receive up to three electric shocks
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
3
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
under specic conditions. One group of participants (N = 20) was told that electric shocks might be administered
whenever an angry face is presented (angry = threat) but not when they see a happy face (happy = safety). e
other group (N = 20) received the opposite instruction, stating that happy facial expressions cued threat-of-shock
(happy = threat), and safety condition being signaled by angry faces (angry = safety). For the second experi-
mental block (reversal), all participants were verbally instructed that now threat and safety contingencies were
reversed. Specically, the previous threat cue becomes safe, and the previous safety cue becomes threatening.
us, across both experimental groups, happy and angry facial expressions served equally oen as instructed and
reversed threat and safety cue; neutral faces always signaled safety.
Procedure. Participants completed questionnaires on general and social anxiety and depression (State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory [STAI-state/trait], Social Phobia Inventory [SPIN], Social Interaction Anxiety Scale [SIAS],
Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]). Sensors for physiological recordings were attached, and an electric stim-
ulation electrode was placed at the right upper arm. Next, a brief shock work-up procedure (without picture
presentation) was carried out to ensure the credibility of the threat instruction22,40. To set the shock intensity
individually at a level rated as “maximally unpleasant but not yet painful”, participants received up to 10 shocks
with increasing intensity. Participants were then instructed that the intensity of the electric shocks given during
the experiment would be equal to the most unpleasant test stimulus.
Practice trials served to familiarize participants with the picture and startle presentation procedure and to
allow for initial habituation of the startle reex. Aerward, verbal instructions regarding threat and safety con-
tingencies were given (i.e., which facial expression signals threat-of-shock and which signals safety) and the
rst experimental block started (instantiation). Following this block, participants rated the hedonic valence and
arousal using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM)41, and perceived threat of the facial expressions using a visual
analog scale ranging from not at all to highly threatening (1 to 10). en all participants received the instruction
that threat/safety contingencies were now reversed (e.g., the threat cue becomes safe, and safety cue becomes
threatening), and the second block started (reversal). Facial expressions were rated again aer the reversal block.
Finally, participants were debriefed. No shocks were presented during the experiment. us, results reect phys-
iological responding during the anticipation (but not experience) of electric shocks.
Data recording and reduction. Psychophysiological measures were recorded continuously with a vAmp
amplier (BrainProducts, Munich, Germany). Startle amplitudes were derived from the electromyogram of the
orbicularis muscle using two miniature Ag/AgCl electrodes. e raw signal was recorded at a 1000 Hz sampling
rate and frequencies below 28 Hz and above 500 Hz were ltered out with a band-pass lter (24 dB/octave roll-o).
Raw electromyogram (EMG) data were rectied and smoothed with a moving average procedure (50 ms) in
VisionAnalyzer 2.0 (BrainProducts). Startle responses were scored with an automated procedure and dened as
the maximum peak in the 21–150 ms time window following each startle probe. Peak amplitudes were calculated
relative to a mean baseline period (50 ms preceding startle response time window)28,42.
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the experimental procedures and stimulus presentation. (A) Aer a
brief practice run and shock work-up procedure, participants were verbally instructed that one particular
emotional facial expression serves as a cue for threat-of-shock (e.g., happy) or safety (e.g., angry) and the rst
experimental block started (instantiation). Preceding the second experimental block (reversal), a verbal reversal
instruction stated that now threat and safety contingencies are reversed (e.g., now angry faces cue threat and
happy cue safety). e order in which facial expressions cued threat or safety was tested in two groups (each
N = 20 completed the happy-angry or angry-happy threat order). Please note, neutral faces always cued safety.
Following each block, threat and safety cues were rated regarding valence, arousal, and perceived threat. (B)
Within each block, face pictures displaying happy, neutral, and angry facial expressions were presented (each
6 s) with a variable intertrial interval (ITI, 10 to 15 s). Auditory startle probes were presented occasionally
during pictures and ITIs, no shocks were presented during the experiment. Example pictures are taken from the
KDEF (identiers: af01has, am08ans, am10nes, and af20ans).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
4
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
As an index of phasic autonomic activation, skin conductance responses (SCRs) were recorded with Ag/
AgCl electrodes (constant voltage of 0.5 V; 20 Hz sampling rate) placed at the hypothenar eminence of the
non-dominant hand. SCRs to picture onset were calculated as the maximum increase in skin conductance in
the interval of 1 to 6 s (relative to a 1 s pre-stimulus period). A minimum threshold of 0.02 µS was used for
zero-response detection, and range and distribution corrections were applied. Phasic heart rate changes to picture
onset was derived from the electrocardiogram recorded at lead II. e electrocardiogram signal was recorded at
1000 Hz, and frequencies below 0.1 and above 13 Hz were ltered. e weighted HR averages every half second
were expressed in terms of dierential scores with respect to a 2 s baseline period24.
Data analysis and statistical design. Self-report (valence, arousal, and threat ratings) and physio-
logical data (startle-EMG and SCR) were submitted to (2 × 2) × 2 repeated measures ANOVA, including the
within-subject factors Instruction (threat vs. safety) and Block (instantiation Block 1 vs. reversal Block 2), as well
as the between-group factor Order (happy-angry vs. angry-happy). e Order referred to the sequence in which
emotional facial expression cued threat or safety in which experimental block. Specically, for the happy-angry
order, happy faces served as threat cue during instantiation block (Block 1), and angry faces cued threat during
the following reversal block (Block 2). is was reversed for the angry-happy order, in which angry faces during
Block 1 and happy faces in Block 2 cued threat-of-shock. Regarding phasic changes in heart rate, an additional
factor, Time (12), was implemented to compare half-second changes aer picture onset.
To examine the impact of emotional facial expression on the instantiation and reversal of threat instruc-
tions, planned comparisons focused separately on each Order (happy-angry vs. angry-happy). Please note that
for reasons of brevity and to reduce the complexity of the overall design, neutral faces cued safety in both blocks
and were thus excluded from the analyses of instructed and reversed threat. However, supplementary analyses
were conducted to compare Facial expression (happy vs. neutral vs. angry) when serving as a safety cue (see
Supplemental Material). Covariation analyses were conducted to test the impact of inter-individual dierences in
reported social- and trait-anxiety on defense activation.
Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were used where relevant, and the partial ƞ2 is reported as a measure of eect
size. To control for Type 1 error, Bonferroni correction was applied for post-hoc t-tests.
Results
Self-report data. Threat ratings. Overall, instructed threat cues were rated as more threatening rel-
ative to safety cues, F(1,39) = 17.37, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.31, and perceived threat decreased from the instan-
tiation block to the reversal block, F(1,39) = 5.98, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.13. The interaction Instruction × Block
did not reach significance, F(1,39) = 1.47, p = 0.23, ηp2 = 0.04, however, a significant three-way interaction
Instruction × Block × Order emerged, F(1,38) = 56.72, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.60.
Follow-up analyses run separately for the Happy-Angry order (see Fig.2A; Table1) showed that instructed
threat eects varied across blocks, F(1,19) = 21.26, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.53. Specically, pronounced threat rat-
ings were observed for happy facial expressions cueing threat-of-shock during instantiation, F(1,19) = 5.23,
p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.22, and for angry faces cueing threat in the subsequent reversal block, F(1,19) = 31.30, p < 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.62. Similarly, for the Angry-Happy order, an interaction Instruction × Block emerged F(1,19) = 35.46,
p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.65. Separate comparisons of threat and safety cues indicate more pronounced threat ratings for
angry faces during the instantiation block, F(1,19) = 35.04, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.65, and happy expressions in the
reversal block, F(1,19) = 16.50, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.47.
Valence ratings. Overall, threat cues were rated as more unpleasant than safety cues, F(1,39) = 11.01, p < 0.01,
ηp2 = 0.22, and unpleasantness decreased across blocks, F(1,39) = 4.62, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.11. Whereas no interac-
tion of Instruction × Block was observed, F(1,39) = 1.99, p = 0.17, ηp2 = 0.05, a signicant three-way interaction
was found, Instruction × Block × Order F(1,38) = 60. 87, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.62.
Separate analysis for the Happy-Angry order (Fig.2B) showed a signicant interaction Instruction × Block ,
F(1,19) = 13.53, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.42. Interestingly, happy expressions were rated as more pleasant than angry faces
even when happy faces served as instructed threat cue in the instantiation block, F(1,19) = 11.01, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.37.
In the reversal block, angry faces cueing threat were rated as more unpleasant than happy faces cueing safety,
F(1,19) = 11.56, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.38. For the Angry-Happy order, a signicant interaction Instruction × Block was
evident, F(1,19) = 58.77, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.76. Angry faces cueing threat were more unpleasant during the instan-
tiation block, F(1,19) = 72.96, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.79, and this threat eect was less pronounced when happy facial
expressions served as new threat cues in the reversal block, F(1,19) = 11.28, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.37.
Arousal ratings. Overall, instructed threat cues were rated as more arousing than safety cues, F(1,39) = 10.41,
p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.21, and arousal decreased from the instantiation to the reversal block, F(1,39) = 21.90, p < 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.36. Moreover, the interaction of Instruction × Block was signicant, F(1,39) = 4.83, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.11,
showing pronounced threat eects in the instantiation block, F(1,39) = 13.52, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.26, but not in the
reversal block, F(1,39) = 1.05, p = 0.31, ηp2 = 0.03. is pattern did not signicantly dier between experimental
orders (Angry-Happy or Happy-Angry; Fig.2C), Instruction × Block × Order F(1,38) = 2.91, p = 0.10, ηp2 = 0.07.
Startle reex. e defensive startle reex was more pronounced when viewing threat as compared to safety
cues (Fig.3A), F(1,39) = 56.87, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.59, and a pronounced pattern of response habituation was
observed across experimental blocks (Fig.4A), F(1,39) = 58.19, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.60. Moreover, reex amplitudes
varied as a function of Instruction × Block, F(1,39) = 4.26, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.10, indicating that threat-potentiation
decreased from the instantiation to the reversal block. Post-hoc tests revealed pronounced dierences between
threat and safety cues within the instantiation block, and less markedly but still highly signicant in the following
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
5
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
reversal block, Fs(1,39) = 48.78 and 16.52, ps < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.56 and 0.30. Importantly, the inherent valence of
emotional facial expressions did not modulate the instantiation and reversal of threat as observed for the startle
reex, Order × Instruction × Block, F(1,38) = 0.73, p = 0.40, ηp2 = 0.02. Planned follow-up tests focused on each
experimental order separately.
Figure 2. Self-reported threat (A), valence (B), and arousal (C) ratings as a function of facial expression (happy,
angry) and instructions (threat, safety). e le side illustrates overall means (with SEM) averaged across
experimental blocks and orders. On the right side, separate means are plotted for each order. e angry-happy
order started with angry facial expression cueing threat during the instantiation block and happy faces cueing
threat during the following reversal block. For the happy-angry order, instructed threat/safety contingencies
were vice versa.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
6
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
When angry faces signaled threat during the instantiation block and served as safety cue in the subsequent
reversal block (Angry-Happy order), main eects of Instruction and Block were signicant, Fs(1,19) = 23.67
and 49.31, ps < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.56 and 0.72. Moreover, startle amplitudes tended to vary as a function of
Instruction × Block, F(1,19) = 3.38, p = 0.08, ηp2 = 0.15. Separate analyses for each block revealed that angry faces
as threat cue triggered highly signicant threat eects during instantiation, F(1,19) = 24.66, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.57,
but only marginal threat effects were observed when angry faces served as safety cue in the reversal block,
F(1,19) = 4.02, p = 0.06, ηp2 = 0.17. In contrast, for the Happy-Angry order, when happy faces served as threat
cue during instantiation and as safety cue in the reversal block, main eects of Instruction and Block were found,
Fs(1,19) = 19.97 and 32.59, ps < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.51 and 0.63. However, threat eects were not reduced across blocks
when angry faces cued shock threat in the reversal block, Instruction × Blo ck F(1,19) = 0.96, p = 0.34, ηp2 = 0.05.
Follow-up tests revealed pronounced threat-potentiated startle for happy faces cueing threat in the instantiation
block, F(1,19) = 22.95, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.55, which was similarly pronounced in the subsequent reversal block
when angry faces cued threat, F(1,19) = 16.1, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.46. us, during the reversal block, instruction
eects were more resistant to extinction when angry rather than happy faces cued threat.
Exploratory analyses revealed that the overall interaction Instruction × Block varied as a function of
inter-individual dierences in reported social- and trait-anxiety (Fig.4B). Specically, signicant covariation
eects were observed with SPIN scores, F(1,38) = 8.15, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.18, STAI-trait, F(1,38) = 7.81, p < 0.01,
ηp2 = 0.17, and marginally with SIAS, F(1,38) = 3.71, p = 0.06, ηp2 = 0.09. To follow up on these interactions,
correlational analyses were conducted between anxiety scores and startle amplitudes (i.e., the dierence scores
between threat minus safety) separately for each block. For the instantiation block, threat eects did not vary
with anxiety level (rtrait-anxiety = −0.20, p = 0.21; rSPIN = −0.25, p = 0.12; rSIAS = −0.08, p = 0.61). In the subsequent
reversal block, however, threat-potentiated startle was more pronounced in participants who scored higher on
anxiety (rtrait-anxiety = 0.36, p < 0.05; rSPIN = 0.32, p < 0.05; rSIAS = 0.32, p < 0.05). us, anxious participants did not
exhibit more pronounced, but more persistent defense activation compared to less socially anxious participants.
Skin conductance responses. Enhanced skin conductance responses (SCR) were observed for threat rel-
ative to safety cues, F(1,39) = 9.29, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.19 (see Fig.3B). SCRs diminished over time, they were more
pronounced in the instantiation block than in the subsequent reversal block, F(1,39) = 7.21, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.16.
e interaction Instruction × Block didn’t reach signicance, F(1,39) = 2.95, p = 0.09, ηp2 = 0.07. Explorator y
follow-up analyses revealed signicant threat eects during instantiation, F(1,39) = 20.93, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.35,
but not in the reversal block, F(1,39) = 2.31, p = 0.14, ηp2 = 0.06. Importantly, the inherent facial valence did
not modulate SCRs for instantiation and reversal of threat, Order × Instruct ion × Block, F(1,38) = 0.53, p = 0.47,
ηp2 = 0.01. Planned comparisons focused separately on each experimental order.
When angry faces served initially as threat cues, and later as safety cues (Angry-Happy order), there
were signicant main eects of Instruction, F(1,19) = 13.34, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.41, and Block, F(1,19) = 8.43,
p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.31, as well as a trend to an interaction Instruction × Block, F(1,19) = 3.55, p = 0.08, ηp2 = 0.16.
Follow-up analyses revealed threat-enhanced SCRs when angry faces cued threat during the instantiation block,
F(1,19) = 15.15, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.44, but not when happy faces cued threat in the reversal block, F(1,19) = 2.63,
p = 0.12, ηp2 = 0.12. For the Happy-Angry order, in contrast, SCRs did not differ for Instruction or Block,
Fs(1,19) = 2.55 and 0.53, ps = 0.13 and 0.48, ηp2 = 0.21 and 0.03. Whereas no interaction of Instruction × Block
was found, F(1,19) = 0.41, p = 0.53, ηp2 = 0.02, exploratory analyses indicated threat-enhanced SCRs to happy
faces cueing threat during the instantiation, F(1,19) = 6.85, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.27, but not when threat was cued
by angry faces in the subsequent reversal block, F(1,19) = 0.79, p = 0.38, ηp2 = 0.04. No covariation eects were
observed between SCRs and anxiety scores.
Phasic heart rate changes. Overall, heart rate revealed a signicant deceleration when viewing threat
relative to safety cues, F(1,39) = 4.03, p = 0.05, ηp2 = 0.09 (see Fig.3C). Furthermore, there was an interaction of
Time × Instruction, F(11,429) = 5.48, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.12. Follow-up analyses were calculated separately for each
time interval and indicated signicant heart rate deceleration for threat relative to safety cues between 3 and 5 s
Block Instruction Order
Startle SCR HR Val e n ce Arousal reat
MSD MSD MSD MSD MSD MSD
Instantiation
(Block 1)
reat Angry-Happy 57.85 5.14 0.115 0.11 −2.75 1.66 3.55 1.73 5.15 1.66 5.05 2.61
Happy-Angry 57.48 5.31 0.097 0.17 −2.75 2.71 5.05 2.48 5.80 2.14 4.05 3.61
Safe Angry-Happy 49.54 3.31 0.030 0.04 −0.78 1.85 7.90 1.25 3.30 2.13 0.95 1.76
Happy-Angry 49.77 3.60 0.032 0.07 −1.30 4.36 3.50 1.67 5.45 2.19 5.20 3.08
Reversal
(Block 2)
reat Angry-Happy 50.26 5.99 0.048 0.10 −1.64 3.28 6.30 1.75 4.15 2.08 2.15 1.95
Happy-Angry 51.21 5.44 0.079 0.24 −2.58 2.65 4.85 1.69 3.90 1.71 4.10 2.38
Safe Angry-Happy 46.58 4.22 0.014 0.02 −1.33 2.62 4.50 1.54 3.75 1.62 4.23 2.46
Happy-Angry 45.41 4.32 0.034 0.05 −1.29 2.31 6.70 1.75 3.75 1.89 1.55 1.79
Table 1. Mean amplitudes and standard deviations (M, SD) as a function of Block (instantiation vs. reversal),
Instruction (threat vs. safety), and Order of threat instruction (Angry-Happy vs. Happy-Angry). Means are
provided for the startle reex, skin conductance responses (SCR), heart rate (HR), and ratings of the self-
reported valence, arousal, and perceived threat. Heart rate changes refer to averages across the signicant time
intervals from 3 to 5 s aer picture onset.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
7
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
aer picture onset (all ps < 0.05). Neither the main eect Block, F(1,39) < 0.01, p = 0.98, ηp2 < 0.01, nor the inter-
actions Instruction × Block, F(1,39) = 0.78, p = 0.38, ηp2 = 0.02, Time × Instruction × Block, F(11,429) = 1.04,
p = 0.38, ηp2 = 0.03, nor the four-way interaction by Order reached signicance, F(11,418) = 0.65, p = 0.58,
ηp2 = 0.02.
Exploratory analyses focused separately on the dierent experimental orders. For the Angry-Happy order,
when angry faces served as a threat cue in the instantiation block, a substantial threat deceleration was evident,
F(1,19) = 8.98, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.32, which developed over time following the threat cue onset, F(11,209) = 5.22,
p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.22. However, no threat eects emerged in the subsequent reversal block when happy faces served
as new threat cue, F(1,19) = 0.01, p = 0.93, ηp2 < 0.01. For the Happy-Angry order, in contrast, no threat eect
occurred, F(1,19) = 2.62, p = 0.12, ηp2 = 0.12, nor did any interaction including Instruction reach signicance,
Fs < 1.68, ps > 0.20, ηp2 < 0.08. No covariation eects were found between phasic heart rate changes and anxiety
scores.
Figure 3. Mean responses of the startle reex (A) and skin conductance (B) for happy and angry facial
expressions serving as threat or safety cue (with SEM). Heart rate changes (C) are averaged every half a second
aer stimulus onset. As no interaction eects occurred with the sequence of instructions, averages across
experimental orders (happy-angry and angry-happy) are illustrated.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
8
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
Discussion
The present study examined the capability of emotional facial expressions as cues for verbally instructed
threat-of-shock or safety. Also, we tested the exibility of threat and safety associations using reversal instructions.
Verbal communication about threat contingencies triggered, as expected, a pronounced pattern of psychophys-
iological defense reactions. is was evident in potentiated eye-blink startle reex, enhanced skin conductance
responses, and heart rate deceleration. For self-report data, interaction eects of facial expressions and verbal
instructions emerged. Specically, when smiling faces cued threat, they were rated as aversive as angry faces.
In contrast, physiological responding was independent of whether the threat was cued by a happy or an angry
facial expression. Moreover, reversal instructions exibly changed defense activation, leading to relatively stable
threat eects despite substantial response habituation across the experimental blocks. Interestingly, aer reversal
instructions, threat-potentiated startle was more pronounced in more socially anxious participants. us, anxious
individuals did not exhibit more pronounced defense activation compared to less anxious participants, but their
defense activation was more persistent.
When confronting other people’s facial expressions, which were previously learned as signals for shock threat,
pronounced activation of the somatic and autonomic nervous system was observed (i.e., potentiated eye-blink
startle and enhanced skin conductance responses). ese ndings replicate previous studies showing defense
activation to visual stimuli cueing instructed threat-of-shock24–29. Defensive responding, however, occurred
regardless of whether the threat was cued by a smiling or an angry face. us, the inherent valence of the threat
cue (happy or angry expression) was not relevant for the acquisition of threat contingencies. is nding adds
to previous research using the threat-of-shock paradigm with complex natural aective scenes4,7,24. For example,
Bradley and colleagues24 observed comparable threat-potentiated startle reex to pleasant and unpleasant pictures
when these served as instructed threat cues. Moreover, when pictures were not predictive for threat-of-shock (i.e.,
presented within a threatening context), threat eects were found similarly pronounced for pleasant, neutral,
and unpleasant pictures4,43. e present study extends this view to face and person perception and shows that the
emotional salience of happy and angry facial expressions can be easily overridden by verbal instructions about
threat contingencies. is nding contributes to the rather mixed evidence on whether human faces serve as an
evolutionary prepared conditional stimulus36,37,44,45. Compared to pictures of snakes or spiders, the human face
may be a less reliable source of threat or safety information, probably because facial expressions can be manipu-
lated consciously and are subject to social display rules46.
e inherent valence of an emotional face did not interact with the verbally transmitted acquisition of threat
or safety contingencies. is nding is supported by previous neuroimaging research, for instance, showing
that threat instructions led to a more general sensitization of stimulus processing32,47, regardless of the a priori
Figure 4. (A) Mean startle responses as a function of threat/safety instructions averaged across experimental
blocks and orders (with SEM). reat and safety contingencies were instantiated in Block 1 (e.g., angry faces
cue threat) and reversed in Block 2 (e.g., happy faces cue threat; or vice versa). (B) Scatterplots illustrate the
covariation between individuals’ social anxiety and threat-potentiated startle eects (dierences between threat
and safety) separately for the instantiation and reversal block. Overall, threat eects are malleable and stable;
anxious participants reveal a more persistent pattern of defense activation aer reversal instructions.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
9
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
meaning of a shock cue (e.g., unpleasant or neutral social scenes). Moreover, in the present study, neither the
somatic (eye-blink startle) nor the autonomic nervous system (SCR and phasic HR responses) showed an interac-
tion between visual and instructed information. Supplementary analyses using Bayesian statistics supported these
ndings. Likelihood estimates of the null hypothesis (i.e., no Order × Instruction × Block interaction) indicated
that the null relative to the alternative hypotheses were around 19-, 37-, and 142-times more likely for the startle
reex, SCR, and HR measures respectively. us, the present data lend support for the notion that the processing
of visual and verbal threat information is organized in (partially) distinct neural circuitry. For example, aective
modulation of the startle reex triggered by emotional pictures is impaired in patients with right rather than le
temporal lobectomy, whereas the opposite pattern can be observed when instructed threat cues are presented48.
Interestingly, our self-report data revealed result patterns that were partly in contrast to physiological measures.
Valence, arousal, and threat ratings conrmed that verbal communication about potential threats clearly induced
aversive anticipations. Moreover, these threat/safety contingencies were highly malleable and reversible using
subsequent instructions. In contrast to physiology, however, rating data showed that the impact of threat and
safety instructions varied with the inherent valence of the facial threat/safety cue. When cueing threat, a smiling
face becomes as aversive as an angry face, and both cues were highly eective in triggering defensive responding
to cope with the anticipated aversive event.
Overall, reversal instructions exibly changed threat/safety associations and the corresponding physiological
response patterns. In line with previous studies, verbal instructions were highly eective at reducing defensive
responding using reversing aective contingencies from threat to safety29–31. Similarly eective was the rever-
sal of contingencies from safety to threat. Newly learned threat cues (previously safe), compared to the newly
learned safety cues (previously threatening), were associated with lower valence and higher threat ratings.
Moreover, potentiation of the startle reex was observed for the new threat cues despite pronounced response
habituation across experimental blocks. is result adds to the ndings of previous research, which show that
instructed threat eects may be highly persistent within and across repeated sessions, even without any aversive
reinforcement4,28.
Interestingly, after reversal instructions, threat effects varied as a function of social and trait anxiety.
Specically, anxious participants did not exhibit more pronounced defense activation compared to less socially
anxious participants but did exhibit a more persistent defense activation. From a clinical perspective, this is an
important nding showing that inter-individual dierences in anxiety might account for the capability to learn
new safety contingencies and to reduce psychophysiological defense activation. As many fears and anxieties rely
on aversive anticipations rather than experiences, the mere absence of aversive events or omission of reinforce-
ment is not sucient for successful fear extinction learning (e.g., in generalized anxiety disorder or social pho-
bia)49–51. To optimize social communication about threats and safety in a therapeutic context, dierent means
of social learning need to be accounted for (i.e., learning by instructions and observations)25,52. Building upon
the present inter-individual dierences in reversal learning, testing (sub-)clinical samples high in social anxiety
or interpersonal disturbances might be particularly informative53,54. Here, the implementation of a full reversal
design29,35 might focus on safety learning and elucidate the impact of reversed compared to maintained social
safety cues.
Several noteworthy aspects of the present design and findings need to be acknowledged and should be
addressed in future research. Exploratory analyses provided some indication for the hypothesis that facial
emotions might dierentially modulate reversal learning. Specically, for the startle reex during the reversal
block, instruction eects were more resistant to extinction when angry rather than happy faces cued threat. is
nding might result from anger-superiority in threat learning (i.e., angry faces more readily associated with
threat)9,10 or happy-superiority11,12 in safety learning. For directly comparing these opposing hypotheses, the use
of a non-aective threat cue condition would have been useful (i.e., neutral faces cueing threat during reversal
block) and cannot be resolved with the data at hand. Future research could examine the capability of distinct
non-aective social stimuli as reversed threat/safety cue. For instance, invariant facial features – such as person
identity and the color of the skin – have been shown to be powerful factors that bias threat learning and can be
pitted against each other (e.g., viewing other-race, but same team faces)34,36,45. Here, social approaches to initiate
persistent reversal learning (i.e., shiing aversive contingencies to other non-social cues) may help to counteract
stereotypes, social avoidance, and ostracism35,55. From an evolutionary perspective, it appears likely that com-
bined variant and invariant facial information (e.g., facial expression and person identity cues)56 critically guide
behavioral responding. For instance, an angry looking out-group member or a smiling mother might be more
readily learned as a signal for threat or safety; such congruency eects in prepared learning can be tested with
personalized stimulus materials (e.g., pictures of attachment gures)57,58. Finally, the transfer to behavioral output
measures appears pertinent to test the implications and consequences of threat and safety learning in social inter-
action situations, for instance, regarding interpersonal trust59, stereotyping and social group biases33,34, or choice
behavior in clinical settings (e.g., decision to undergo treatment)54,60.
In summary, verbal communication about threats might easily prime defensive response programs regardless
of the inherent valence of the threat or safety cue (i.e., happy or angry facial expression). Moreover, threat eects
were malleable by additional verbal instructions, and the persistence of threat eects varied with inter-individual
dierences in social and trait anxiety. Anxious participants did not exhibit more pronounced defense activation
compared to less anxious participants but did exhibit more persistent defense activation. As threat instructions
were not substantiated by the individual’s own experiences (i.e., no shocks during the experiment), these ndings
demonstrate the eects of mere anticipatory processes in person perception relevant to maladaptive extinction
learning in anxiety disorders.
Data Availability
e datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from F.B on request.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
10
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
References
1. De Gelder, B. Towards the neurobiology of emotional body language. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 7(3), 242, doi:1038/nrn1872
(2006).
2. Eman, P. Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist 48(4), 384, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384 (1993).
3. Alpers, G. W., Adolph, D. & Pauli, P. Emotional scenes and facial expressions elicit different psychophysiological responses.
International Journal of Psychophysiology 80(3), 173–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.01.010 (2011).
4. Bublatzy, F., Guerra, P. M., Pastor, M. C., Schupp, H. T., & Vila, J. Additive eects of threat-of-shoc and picture valence on startle
reex modulation. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054003 (2013).
5. Bublatzy, F. & Alpers, G. W. Facing two faces: Defense activation varies as a function of personal relevance. Biological Psychology
125, 64–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.03.001 (2017).
6. Bublatzy, F., Pittig, A., Schupp, H. T., & Alp ers, G. W. Face-to-face: Visual attention to emotional facial expressions depend on face
orientation. Social Cognitive and Aective Neuroscience, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx001 (2017).
7. Grillon, C., Ameli, ., Woods, S. W., Meriangas, . & Davis, M. Fearpotentiated startle in humans: Eects of anticipatory anxiety
on the acoustic blin reex. Psychophysiology 28(5), 588–595, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb01999.x (1991).
8. Adolphs, . Fear, faces, and the human amygdala. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 18(2), 166–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conb.2008.06.006 (2008).
9. Grillon, C. & Charney, D. . In the face of fear: anxiety sensitizes defensive responses to fearful faces. Psychophysiology 48(12),
1745–1752, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01268.x (2011).
10. Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. e face in the crowd revisited: a threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.381 (2001).
11. Becer, D. V., Anderson, U. S., Mortensen, C. ., Neufeld, S. L. & Neel, . e face in the crowd eect unconfounded: Happy faces,
not angry faces, are more eciently detected in single- and multiple-target visual search tass. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 140, 637–659, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024060 (2011).
12. Craig, B. M., Becer, S. I. & Lipp, O. V. Different faces in the crowd: A happiness superiority effect for schematic faces in
heterogeneous bacgrounds. Emotion 14(4), 794–803, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036043 (2014).
13. Bublatzy, F., Gerdes, A. B. M., White, A. J., iemer, M. & Alpers, G. W. Social and emotional relevance in face processing: Happy
faces of future interaction partners enhance the late positive potential. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, 493, https://doi.
org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00493 (2014).
14. Gerdes, A. B. M., Wieser, M. J., Alpers, G. W., Strac, F. & Pauli, P. Why do you smile at me while I’m in pain? Pain selectively
modulates voluntary facial muscle responses to happy faces. International Journal of Psychophysiology 85, 161–167, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.06.002 (2012).
15. Lang, P. J. & Bradley, M. M. Emotion and the motivational brain. Biological Psychology 84(3), 437–450, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biopsycho.2009.10.007 (2010).
16. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. Motivated Attention: Aect, activation, and action. Attention and orienting: Sensory
and motivational processes (pp. 97–135). (1997).
17. Adams, . B., Ambady, N., Macrae, C. N. & lec, . E. Emotional expressions forecast approach-avoidance behavior. Motivation
and Emotion 30(2), 177–186, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9020-2 (2006).
18. Herbert, C., Pauli, P. & Herbert, B. M. Self-reference modulates the processing of emotional stimuli in the absence of explicit self-
referential appraisal instructions. Social Cognitive and Aective Neuroscience 6, 653–61, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq082 (2011).
19. Schindler, S. & issler, J. People matter: Perceived sender identity modulates cerebral processing of socio-emotional language
feedbac. NeuroImage 134, 160–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.052 (2016).
20. Wieser, M. J. et al. Not so harmless anymore: how context impacts the perception and electrocortical processing of neutral faces.
NeuroImage 92, 74–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.022 (2014).
21. Baas, J. M., Milstein, J., Donlevy, M. & Grillon, C. Brainstem correlates of defensive states in humans. Biological Psychiatry 59(7),
588–593, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.09.009 (2006).
22. Bublatzy, F., Flaisch, T., Stocburger, J., Schmälzle, . & Schupp, H. T. e interaction of anticipatory anxiety and emotional picture
processing: An eventrelated brain potential study. Psychophysiology 47(4), 687–696, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.00966.x
(2010).
23. Mechias, M. L., Etin, A. & alisch, . A meta-analysis of instructed fear studies: implications for conscious appraisal of threat.
NeuroImage 49(2), 1760–1768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.040 (2010).
24. Bradley, M. M., Moulder, B. & Lang, P. J. When good things go bad: e reex physiology of defense. Psychological Science 16(6),
468–473, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01558.x (2005).
25. Olsson, A. & Phelps, E. A. Learned fear of “unseen” faces aer Pavlovian, observational, and instructed fear. Psychological Science
15(12), 822–828, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00762.x (2004).
26. Bublatzy, F., Alpers, G. W. & Pittig, A. From avoidance to approach: e inuence of threat-of-shoc on reward-based decision
maing. Behaviour Research and erapy 96, 47–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.01.003 (2017).
27. Schlund, M. W. e t al. “Watch out!”: Eects of instructed threat and avoidance on human freeoperant approach–avoidance behavior.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 107(1), 101–122, https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.238 (2017).
28. Bublatzy, F., Gerdes, A. & Alpers, G. W. e persistence of socially instructed t hreat: Two threatofshoc studies. Psychophysiology
51(10), 1005–1014, https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12251 (2014).
29. Costa, V. D., Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. From threat to safety: Instructed reversal of defensive reactions. Psychophysiology 52(3),
325–332, https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12359 (2015).
30. Mertens, G. & De Houwer, J. Potentiation of the startle reex is in line with contingency reversal instructions rather than the
conditioning history. Biological Psychology 113, 91–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.11.014 (2016).
31. owles, M. E., Lipp, O. V. & Mallan, . M. On the resistance to extinction of fear conditioned to ang ry faces. Psychophysiology 49(3),
375–380, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01308.x (2012).
32. Bublatzy, F. & Schupp, H. T. Pictures cueing threat: brain dynamics in viewing explicitly instructed danger cues. Social Cognitive
and Aective neuroscience 7, 611–622, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr032 (2012).
33. Fise, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Inuences of
information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2 (1990).
34. Golar, A. & Olsson, A. e interplay of social group biases in social threat learning. Scientic Reports 7(1), 7685, https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-017-07522 (2017).
35. Schiller, D., Levy, I., Niv, Y., LeDoux, J. E. & Phelps, E. A. From fear to safety and bac: reversal of fear in the human brain. Journal of
Neuroscience 28(45), 11517–11525, https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUOSCI.2265-08.2008 (2008).
36. Mallan, . M., Sax, J. & Lipp, O. V. Verbal instruction abolishes fear conditioned to racial out-group faces. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 45(6), 1303–1307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.001 (2009).
37. Hugdahl, . Electrodermal conditioning to potentially phobic stimuli: Eects of instructed extinction. Behaviour Research and
erapy 16(5), 315–321, https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(78)90001-3 (1978).
38. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A exible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39, 175–191, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 (2007).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

www.nature.com/scientificreports/
11
SCIentIFIC RepoRTS | (2018) 8:14988 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2
39. Lundqvist, D., Flyt, A., & Öhman, A. e arolinsa directed emotional faces (DEF). CD OM from Department of Clinical
Neuroscience, Psychology section, arolinsa Institutet (1998).
40. iemer, M., Bublatzy, F., Trojan, J. & Alpers, G. W. Defensive activation during the rubber hand illusion: Ownership versus
proprioceptive dri. Biological psychology 109, 86–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.04.011 (2015).
41. Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment maniin and the semantic dierential. Journal of Behavior
erapy and Experimental Psychiatr y 25(1), 49–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 (1994).
42. Blumenthal, T. D. et al. Committee report: Guidelines for human startle eyeblin electromyographic studies. Psychophysiology 42(1),
1–15, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00271.x (2005).
43. Dunning, J. P., Del Donno, S. & Hajca, G. e eects of contextual threat and anxiety on aective startle modulation. Biological
Psychology 94(1), 130–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.013 (2013).
44. Lipp, O. V. & Edwards, M. S. Eect of instructed extinction on verbal and autonomic indices of Pavlovian learning with fear-relevant
and fear-irrelevant condit ional stimuli. Journal of Psychophysiology 16(3), 176, https://doi.org/10.1027//0269-8803.16.3.176 (2002).
45. Navarette, C. D. et al . e roles of race and gender in the persistence of learned fear. Psychological Science 20, 155–198 (2009).
46. Zaalberg, ., Manstead, A. & Fischer, A. elations between emotions, display rules, social motives, and facial behaviour. Cognition
and Emotion 18(2), 183–207, https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000040 (2004).
47. linenberg, I. A. et al. Healthy individuals maintain adaptive stimulus evaluation under predictable and unpredictable threat.
NeuroImage 136, 174–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.041 (2016).
48. Funayama, E. S., Grillon, C., Davis, M. & Phelps, E. A. A double dissociation in the aective modulation of startle in humans: eects
of unilateral temporal lobectomy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13(6), 721–729, https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290152541395
(2001).
49. Lovibond, P. F. & Shans, D. . e role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 28(1), 3 (2002).
50. Minea, S. & Zinbarg, . A contemporary learning theory perspective on the etiology of anxiety disorders: it’s not what you thought
it was. American Psychologist 61(1), 10, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.10 (2006).
51. achman, S. e conditioning theory of fear acquisition: A critical examination. Behaviour Research and erapy, 15(5), 375–387,
doi:10.1.1.527.294 (1977).
52. Asew, C., eynolds, G., Fielding-Smith, S. & Field, A. P. Inhibition of vicariously learned fear in children using positive modeling
and prior exposure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 125, 279–291, https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000131 (2016).
53. eltner, D. & ring, A. M. Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review of General Psychology 2(3), 320 (1998).
54. Paret, C., Jennen-Steinmetz, C. & Schmahl, C. Disadvantageous decision-maing in borderline personality disorder: Partial support
from a meta-analytic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 72, 301–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.11.019
(2017).
55. Lindström, B. & Tobler, P. N. Incidental ostracism emerges from simple learning mechanisms. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0355-y (2018).
56. aufmann, J. M. & Schweinberger, S. . Expression inuences the recognition of familiar faces. Perception 33(4), 399–408, https://
doi.org/10.1068/p5083 (2004).
57. Guerra, P. et al. Filial versus romantic love: contributions from peripheral and central electrophysiolog y. Biological Psychology 88(2),
196–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.08.002 (2011).
58. Langeslag, S. J., Jansma, B. M., Franen, I. H. & Van Strien, J. W. Event-related potential responses to love-related facial stimuli.
Biological Psychology 76(1-2), 109–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.06.007 (2007).
59. Tang, H. et al. Interpersonal brain synchronization in the right temporo-parietal junction during face-to-face economic exchange.
Social Cognitive and Aective Neuroscience 11(1), 23–32, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv092 (2015).
60. Pittig, A., Alpers, G. W., Niles, A. N. & Crase, M. G. Avoidant decision-maing in social anxiety disorder: a laboratory tas lined
to in vivo anxiety and treatment outcome. Behaviour Research and erapy 73, 96–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.08.003
(2015).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to O. Denzler, O. Grüner, S. Reuter, and C. Zala for their help with data collection. We received
helpful comments from Fatih Kavcioglu. is research was supported by the German Research Foundation
(Deutsche Forschungsgemeinscha; BU 3255/1-1, granted to F. Bublatzky).
Author Contributions
F.B., P.G. and G.W.A conceived the study and were involved in the generation and analyses of the data. F.B. wrote
the manuscript and all authors revised the manuscript.
Additional Information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33269-2.
Competing Interests: e authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional aliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Cre-
ative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. e images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not per-
mitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© e Author(s) 2018
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com