Four studies investigate a fear of imbalanced minds hypothesis that threatening agents perceived to be relatively mismatched in capacities for cognition (e.g., self-control and reasoning) and emotion (e.g., sensations and emotions) will be rated as scarier and more dangerous by observers. In ratings of fictional monsters (e.g., zombies and vampires), agents seen as more imbalanced between capacities for cognition and emotion (high cognition–low emotion or low cognition–high emotion) were rated as scarier compared to those with equally matched levels of cognition and emotion (Studies 1 and 2). Similar effects were observed using ratings of scary animals (e.g., tigers, sharks; Studies 2 and 3), and infected humans (Study 4). Moreover, these effects are explained through diminished perceived control/predictability over the target agent. These findings highlight the role of balance between cognition and emotion in appraisal of threatening agents, in part because those agents are seen as more chaotic and uncontrollable.
BauerD. J.PreacherK. J.GilK. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
EllsworthP. C.SchererK. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In DavidsonR. J.SchererK. R.GoldsmithH. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). Oxford University Press.
5.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
6.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
7.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
8.
FriedkinW. (1973). The exorcist (Extended director’s cut.). Warner Bros. Entertainment.
9.
GeigerA.RichardsonK.PottsC. (2020). Neural natural language inference models partially embed theories of lexical entailment and negation (arXiv:2004.14623). http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14623
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748
HernandezI.PrestonJ. L.HeplerJ. (2014). Timescale halo: Average-speed targets elicit more positive and less negative attributions than slow or fast targets. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e83320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083320
18.
JonesA. C. (2008). Development and validation of a dog personality questionnaire [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin].
19.
KelleyH. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
20.
LefkeliD.OzbayY.Gürhan-CanliZ., et al (2021). Competing with or against cozmo, the robot: Influence of interaction context and outcome on mind perception. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00668-3
21.
LoughnanS.HaslamN. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18(2), 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01858.x
22.
MorewedgeC. K.PrestonJ.WegnerD. M. (2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.1
23.
NieY.WilliamsA.DinanE.BansalM.WestonJ.KielaD. (2020, July,). Adversarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural language understanding [Paper presentation]. 58Th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.441
24.
NorenzayanA.AtranS.FaulknerJ.SchallerM. (2006). Memory and mystery: The cultural selection of minimally counterintuitive narratives. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_68
25.
ÖhmanA. (1986). Face the beast and fear the face: Animal and social fears as prototypes for evolutionary analyses of emotion. Psychophysiology, 23(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00608.x
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
28.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
29.
ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2011). Mean gods make good people: Different views of God predict cheating behavior. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.556990
30.
SmithC. A.EllsworthP. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.48.4.813
31.
SnyderM.TankeE. D.BerscheidE. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656
32.
ThorneJ.VlachosA.ChristodoulopoulosC.MittalA. (2018). FEVER: A large-scale – for fact extraction and VERification. http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05355
33.
WaytzA.GrayK.EpleyN.WegnerD. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006
34.
YangZ.DaiZ.YangY.CarbonellJ.SalakhutdinovR.LeQ. V. (2020). XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding (arXiv:1906.08237). http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08237
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
