Scientific research has the power to prompt strong emotional reactions. We investigated the relationship between such reactions and individuals’ understanding and judgments of the research. Participants read an article describing recent cancer research and reported the extent to which it evoked six emotions: fear, anger, disgust, happiness, sadness, and surprise. We modeled these emotions two ways, either considering each separately or clustering them into two groups, for emotions with positive or negative valence. Even after controlling for the number of predictors, models based on the six separate emotions better predicted participants’ subjective understanding of the research, judgments of its quality, and trust in the scientists who conducted it. Participants who reported more disgust also had more negative judgments of the research and the scientists, but these relationships were weaker when participants reported their emotions before making these judgments, rather than after. We discuss practical and ethical implications of these results.
AlhakamiASSlovicP (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis14(6): 1085–1096.
2.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
3.
BecharaADamasioHTranelDDamasioA (1997) Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science275(5304): 1293–1295.
4.
BodenhausenGVSheppardLAKramerGP (1994) Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology24: 45–62.
5.
BroomellSBKanePB (2017) Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General146(2): 286–304.
6.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017a) Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making30(1): 26–38.
7.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017b) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114(36): 9587–9592.
8.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2019) Does “putting on your thinking cap” reduce myside bias in evaluation of scientific evidence?Thinking & Reasoning25: 477–505.
9.
DunnJRSchweitzerME (2005) Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology88(5): 736–748.
10.
EkmanP (1992) An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion6: 169–200.
11.
FinucaneMLAlhakamiASlovicPJohnsonSM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making13(1): 1–17.
12.
FiskeSTDupreeC (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America111(Suppl. 1): 3593–3597.
13.
FiskeSTCuddyAJCGlickPXuJ (2002) A model of (often mixed)stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(6): 878–902.
14.
GheorghiuAICallanMJSkylarkWJ (2017) Facial appearance affects science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114(23): 5970–5975.
15.
HanSLernerJSKeltnerD (2007) Feelings and consumer decision making: Extending the appraisal-tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology17(3): 181–187.
HartPS (2013) The role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messages. Public Understanding of Science22(7): 785–798.
18.
HolmanEAGarfinDRSilverRC (2014) Media’s role in broadcasting acute stress following the Boston Marathon bombings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America1111(1): 93–98.
19.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
20.
LazarsfeldPF (1949) The American soldier: An expository review. Public Opinion Quarterly13(3): 377–404.
21.
LernerJSKeltnerD (2000) Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion14(4): 473–493.
22.
LernerJSKeltnerD (2001) Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81(1): 146–159.
23.
LernerJSTiedensLZ (2006) Portrait of The angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making19: 115–137.
24.
LernerJSLiYValdesoloPKassamKS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology66(1): 799–823.
25.
LernerJSSmallDAFischhoffB (2003) Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science14: 144–150.
MellersBASchwartzACookeADJ (1998) Judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology49: 447–477.
28.
MillerJD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273–294.
29.
O’BrienRM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity41: 673–690.
30.
PetersESlovicP (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology26(16): 1427–1453.
31.
RhodesRERodriguezFShahP (2014) Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition40(5): 1432–1440.
32.
RoyzmanECusimanoCLeemanRF (2017) What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies. Judgment and Decision Making125(5): 466–480.
33.
ScottSEInbarYRozinP (2016) Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science113(3): 315–324.
ShiJVisschersVHMSiegristMArvaiJ (2016) Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change6(8): 759–762.
36.
SlovicPFischhoffB (1977) On the psychology of experimental surprises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3: 544–551.
37.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersEMacGregorDG (2007) The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research177(3): 1333–1352.
38.
SlovicPFlynnJHLaymanM (1991) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science254(5038): 1603–1607.
39.
SmallDALernerJSFischhoffB (2006) Emotion priming and attributions for terrorism: Americans’ reactions in a national field experiment. Political Psychology27(2): 289–298.
40.
SmithCEllsworthP (1985) Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology48: 813–838.
41.
SmithNLeiserowitzA (2014) The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis345(5): 937–948.
42.
StockJHWatsonMW (2006) Introduction to Econometrics, 2nd edn.London: Pearson.
43.
TiedensLZLintonS (2001) Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Attitudes and Social Cognition81(6): 973–988.
44.
TomasettiCLiLVogelsteinB (2017) Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention. Science355: 1330–1334.
45.
VästfjällDSlovicPBurnsWErlandssonAKoppelLAsutayE, et al. (2016) The arithmetic of emotion: Integration of incidental and integral affect in judgments and decisions. Frontiers in Psychology7: 325.
46.
WatsonDClarkLATellegenA (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54(6): 1063–1070.
47.
WeeksBE (2015) Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication65(4): 699–719.
48.
YeoSKSunYMcKasyMShugartEC (2019) Disgusting microbes: The effect of disgust on perceptions of risks related to modifying microbiomes. Public Understanding of Science28(4): 433–448.
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.
