Two experiments evaluated the role graph schemata play in potentiating trepidation-related responses to static and dynamic graphical depictions of increasingly threatening trends. Rational and experiential processing systems' role in responding to the graphic depictions was examined. High rationals reported significantly less trepidation than lows when concrete trends exhibited attenuated recent growth but equal amounts when the trends showed linear or recent explosive growth. Low experientials were more apprehensive than highs when graphs were presented dynamically (Experiment 1). The same functions were presented as undefined threats in Experiment 2. High rational–low experientials were significantly less apprehensive than high rational–high experientials when the trend exhibited attenuated recent growth. Low rationals were more apprehensive than highs when graphs were presented dynamically. Graph schemata do not map graphical information on to trepidation-related metrics in any simple way, and stimulus ambiguity may activate experiential processing to the point that it dominates the rational system.
Altheide, D. L. (2002). Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
2.
Berger, C. R. (2001). Making it worse than it is: Quantitative depictions of threatening trends in the news. Journal of Communication, 46, 655-677.
3.
Berger, C. R. (2005). Slippery slopes to apprehension: Rationality and graphical depictions of increasingly threatening trends. Communication Research, 32, 3-28.
4.
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.
5.
Berger, C. R., Lee, E.-J., & Johnson, J. T. (2003). Gender, rationality, and base-rate explanations for increasing trends. Communication Research, 30, 737-765.
6.
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. 339-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
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.
8.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Cohl, H. A. (1997). Are we scaring ourselves to death? How pessimism, paranoia, and misguided media are leading us toward disaster. New York: St. Martin's.
10.
De Becker, G. (2002). Fear less: Real truth about risk, safety, and security in a time of terrorism. New York: Little, Brown.
11.
Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research: Theory and research (pp. 165-192). New York: Guilford.
12.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
13.
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Volume 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 159-184). New York: John Wiley.
14.
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.
15.
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.
16.
Furedi, F. (1997). The culture of fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Cassell.
17.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication, 6, 223-230.
18.
Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Glassner, B. (1999). Culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. New York: Basic Books.
20.
Jackson, S. A. (1992). Message effects research. New York: Guilford.
21.
Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
22.
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.
23.
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.
24.
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. Unpublished manuscript.
25.
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
26.
Petty, R. B., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
27.
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.
28.
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.
29.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrast and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 94-120.
31.
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.
32.
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.
33.
Siegel, M. (2005). False alarm: The truth about the epidemic of fear. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
34.
Simkin, D., & Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454-465.
35.
Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
36.
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory and Cognition, 27, 1073-1079.
37.
Zillmann, D. (2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory research (pp. 19-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
