Researchers have documented differential effects of emotion on cognitive processes, debating whether emotion may increase or decrease the response time and accuracy of logical thinking. The current study proposed that differences may be due to variability occurring across topic and categorical emotions, such that assessment of several basic emotional responses in the context of performing logical reasoning tasks may provide an initial indication of these differences. Utilizing modus ponens syllogisms composed of controversial statements, the current study evoked a variety of emotional responses and tested the accuracy of participants’ basic logical thinking. Results indicated that logical skills were largely preserved despite the topic and emotion, nonetheless, accuracy varied across syllogism type (controversial vs. control), with increased accuracy on controversial syllogisms. Syllogisms rated as evoking no emotion were answered more accurately than those that evoked any emotion, with disgust and anger associated with less accuracy than no emotion and gladness associated with increased accuracy. Response times also differed across syllogism type, emotion, and emotion intensity.
AquinasT. (1947). The summa theologica (fathers of the english dominican province, trans). Benzinger Brothers.
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
3.
BeckJ. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
4.
BlanchetteI. (2006). The effect of emotion on interpretation and logic in a conditional reasoning task. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1112–1125. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193257
5.
BlanchetteI.CaparosS. (2013). When emotions improve reasoning: The possible roles of relevance and utility. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3–4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.791642
6.
BlanchetteI.GaviganS.JohnstonK. (2014). Does emotion help or hinder reasoning? The moderating role of relevance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(3), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034996
7.
BlanchetteI.LeeseJ. (2011). The effect of negative emotion on deductive reasoning: Examining the contribution of physiological arousal. Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000090
8.
BlanchetteI.RichardsA. (2004). Reasoning about emotional and neutral materials. Is logic affected by emotion?Psychological Science, 15(11). 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00751.x
9.
BlanchetteI.RichardsA. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 561–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903132496
10.
BlanchetteI.RichardsA.MelnykL.LavdaA. (2007). Reasoning about emotional contents following shocking terrorist attacks: A tale of three cities. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 13(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.47
11.
BrunettiM.PerrucciM. G.Di NaccioM. R.FerrettiA.Del GrattaC.CasadioC.RomaniG. L. (2014). Framing deductive reasoning with emotional content: An fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 87C(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.017
12.
CarverC. S.Harmon-JonesE. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013965
13.
d’AlfonsoA. A.van HonkJ.HermansE.PostmaA.de HaanE. H. (2000). Laterality effects in selective attention to threat after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at the prefrontal cortex in female subjects. Neuroscience Letters, 280(3), 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(00)00781-3
EliadesM.MansellW.StewartA. J.BlanchetteI. (2012). An investigation of belief-bias and logicality in reasoning with emotional contents. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(4), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.713317
16.
Erlich-RonR.GindiS. (2021). Beyond allowing ventilation: How to connect the social-emotional and the cognitive in teachers’ handling of controversial political issues (CPI)?Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 16(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl_00055_1
17.
FeinS.GoethalsG. R.KuglerM. B. (2007). Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates. Political Psychology, 28(2), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00561.x
18.
FinucaneA. M. (2011). The effect of fear and anger on selective attention. Emotion, 11(4), 970–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022574
19.
FringsC.EnglertJ.WemturaD.BermeitingerC. (2010). Decomposing the emotional stroop effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903156594
20.
GindiS.SageeR.GilatR. (2021). Who wants a political classroom? Attitudes toward teaching controversial political issues in school. Journal of Social Science Education, 20(2), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.11576/jsse-3943
GoelV.VartanianO. (2011). Negative emotions can attenuate the influence of beliefs on logical reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 25(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003593942
23.
GreenbergL. S. (2015). Emotion-focused therapy: Coaching clients to work through their feelings (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14692-000
24.
HahnK. S.LeeH. Y.HaS.JangS.LeeJ. (2018). The influence of “social viewing” on televised debate viewers’ political judgment. Political Communication, 35(2), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1354947
25.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage/Random House.
26.
Harmon-JonesE.Harmon-JonesC.SummerellE. (2017). On the importance of both dimensional and discrete models of emotion. Behavioral Sciences, 7(4), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7040066
27.
HessD. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion (1st ed.). Routledge.
28.
HessD. E. (2018). Teaching controversial issues: An introduction. Social Education, 82(6), 306.
29.
HessD. E.McAvoyP. (2015). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. Routledge.
30.
JensenS. J. (2018). The human person: A beginner’s thomistic psychology. Catholic University of America Press.
31.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
LukianoffG.HaidtJ. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin Books.
34.
MoorsA.SchererK. R. (2013). The role of appraisal in emotion. In RobinsonM. D.WatkinsE.Harmon-JonesE. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 135–155). The Guilford Press.
35.
MorsanyiK.HandleyS. J. (2012). Logic feels so good—I like it! Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 596–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026099
36.
NundyS. (1997, February). The effects of emotion on human inference: Towards a computational model [Dissertation abstracts international, ProQuest Information & Learning].
37.
OlatunjiB. O.AdamsT.CiesielskiB.DavidB.SarawgiS.Broman-FulksJ. (2012). The three domains of disgust scale: Factor structure, psychometric properties, and conceptual limitations. Assessment, 19(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111432881
38.
PaceJ. L. (2019). Contained risk-taking: Preparing preservice teachers to teach controversial issues in three countries. Theory & Research in Social Education, 47(2), 228–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1595240
39.
PiagetJ. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. Free Press.
40.
PiagetJ. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. D. Coltman, Trans.
41.
PiagetJ. (2008). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 51(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1159/000112531
42.
SchallerM.ParkJ. H. (2011). The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402596
SmithK. W.BalkwillL. L.VartanianO.GoelV. (2015). Syllogisms delivered in an angry voice lead to improved performance and engagement of a different neural system compared to neutral voice. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00273.
45.
SobelM.E. (1982). Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology, 290-312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723.
46.
StanovichK. E. (2021). The irrational attempt to impute irrationality to one’s political opponents. In HannonM.de RidderJ. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of political epistemology. Routledge.
47.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
48.
TrippasD.HandleyS. J.VerdeM. F.MorsanyiK. (2016). Logic brightens my day: Evidence for implicit sensitivity to logical validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1448–1457. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000248
49.
VartanianO.NakashimaA.BouakF.SmithI.BaranskiJ. V.CheungB. (2013). Negative valence can evoke a liberal response bias in syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Processing, 14(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0526-0
50.
Viau-QuesnelC.SavaryM.BlanchetteI. (2019). Reasoning and concurrent timing: A study of the mechanisms underlying the effect of emotion on reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 33(5), 1020–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1535427
