Two experiments examined the interactive effects of rational thinking style and variations in the slopes of threatening trends on individuals’ judgments. In Experiment 1, individuals read news stories containing graphical depictions of linearly increasing rates of campus theft. Apprehension, problem seriousness, and perceived risk of theft victimization judgments were made in response to three different slopes (shallow, moderate, and steep). High rationals demonstrated less apprehension and more attenuated problem seriousness judgments, and high rationals’ judgments showed greater variabilityin response to the slope variations than did those of the low rationals. Experiment 2 employed a linear and two nonlinear functions with identical initial and final values. Results for Experiment 2 were consistent with those of Experiment 1. High rationals appear more likely to heed cues that serve to reduce the amount of apprehension they experience in response to graphically presented information about increasingly threatening trends.
Altheide, D. L. (2002). Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
2.
Baesler, E. J. (1991). Message processing of evidence and the long-term retention and judgment of beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
3.
Baesler, E. J.,& Burgoon, J.K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582-602.
4.
Berger, C. R. (1998). Processing quantitative data about risk and threat in news reports. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 87-106.
5.
Berger, C. R. (2000). Quantitative depictions of threatening trends in news reports: The scary world of frequency data. Human Communication Research, 26, 27-52.
6.
Berger, C. R. (2001). Making it worse than it is: Quantitative depictions of threatening trends in the news. Journal of Communication, 46,655-677.
7.
Berger, C. R. (2002). Base-rate bingo: Ephemeral effects of population data on cognitive responses, apprehension, and perceived risk. Communication Research, 29, 99-124.
8.
Berger, C. R., Johnson, J. T., & Lee, E.-J. (2003). Antidotes for anthrax anecdotes: The role of rationality and base-rate data in assuaging apprehension. Communication Research, 30, 198-223.
9.
Berger, C. R., Lee, E.-J., & Johnson, J. T. (2003). Gender, rationality, and baserate explanations for increasing trends. Communication Research, 30, 737-765.
10.
Brosius, H.-B. (1993). The effects of emotional pictures in television news. Communication Research, 20, 105-124.
11.
Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78.
12.
Cantor, J. (2002). Fright reactions to mass media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 287-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford.
15.
Clark, H. H.(1996). Using language.New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Cohl, H. A. (1997). Are we scaring ourselves to death?: How pessimism, paranoia, and a misguided media are leading us toward disaster. New York: St. Martin’s.
17.
Crossen, C. (1994). Tainted truth: The manipulation of fact in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
18.
Davis, S., & Mares, M.-L. (1998). Effects of talk show viewing on adolescents. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 69-86.
19.
De Becker, G. (2002). Fear less: Real truth about risk, safety, and security in a time of terrorism. New York: Little, Brown.
20.
DeLosh, E. L., Busemeyer, J. R., McDaniel, M. A. (1997). Extrapolation: The sine qua non for abstraction in function learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 968-986.
21.
Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 165-192). New York: Guilford.
22.
Epstein, S.(1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
23.
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality.In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159-184). New York: John Wiley.
24.
Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-482). New York: Guilford.
25.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytic-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
26.
Funkhouser, H. G. (1937). Historical development of the graphical representation of statistical data. Osiris, 3, 269-404.
27.
Furedi, F. (1997). The culture of fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Cassell.
28.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 6, 223-230.
29.
Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. (1994). Exaggerated versus representative exemplification in news reports. Communication Research, 21, 603-624.
30.
Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Ecological intelligence: An adaptation for frequencies. In D. D. Cummins & C. Allen (Eds.), The evolution of mind (pp. 9-29). New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Glassner, B. (1999). Culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. New York: Basic Books.
32.
Hirsch, P. (1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis. Communication Research, 7, 403-456.
33.
Hirsch, P. (1981). On not learning from one’s own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis, part II. Communication Research, 8, 3-37.
34.
Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
35.
Mares, M.-L.(1996). The role of source confusions in television’s cultivation of social reality judgments. Human Communication Research, 23, 278-297.
36.
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 1-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
Norris, P., & Epstein, S. (2002). The investigation of some fundamental issues concerning rational-analytical and intuitive-experiential thinking styles with a short form of the Rational-Experiential Inventory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
39.
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratiobias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
40.
Paulos, J. A. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: Basic Books.
41.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
42.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
43.
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
Pryor, F. L.,& Schaffer, D. L. (1999). Who’s not working and why:Employment, cognitive skills, wages, and the changing U. S. labor market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-972.
46.
Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 94-120.
47.
Shrum, L. J. (2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 69-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
Shrum, L. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1993). Process and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436-471.
49.
Simkin, D. & Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454-465.
50.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
51.
Sparks, G. G., & Sparks, C. W. (2002). Effects of media violence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 269-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Wagenaar, W. A., & Sagaria, S. D. (1975). Misperception of exponential growth. Perception and Psychophysics, 18, 416-422.
53.
Wagenaar, W. A., & Timmers, H. (1978). Intuitive perception of growth. In D. F. Burkhardt & W. H. Ittelson (Eds.), Environmental assessments of socioeconomic systems (pp. 103-122). New York: Plenum.
54.
Wagenaar, W. A., & Timmers, H. (1979). The pond-and-duckweed problem: Three experiments on the misperception of exponential growth. Acta Psychologica, 43, 239-251.
55.
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
56.
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory and Cognition, 27, 1073-1079.
57.
Zillmann, D. (2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 19-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58.
Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59.
Zillmann, D., Gibson, R., Ordman, V. J., & Aust, C. F. (1994). Effects of humaninterest stories in broadcast news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38, 65-78.
60.
Zillmann, D., Perkins, J. W., & Sundar, S. S. (1992). Impression-formation effects of printed news varying in descriptive precision and exemplification. Medien psychologie, 3, 168-185.
