ABSTRACT
Emotion plays a significant role in our reasoning even without awareness, perhaps especially for individuals who have difficulties tolerating strong, negative emotions. Opportunity for reflection may help such individuals decide when emotions should influence reasoning. Two studies attempted to clarify the relationships among reasoning, emotions, and emotion tolerance (measured with the Affect Intolerance Scale). The first examined the effect of affect intolerance on a reasoning task. Participants were asked to determine whether conclusions logically followed from both emotional and neutral if-then statements. Emotion had a small effect on performance on the reasoning task, unmoderated by affect intolerance. The second study examined whether reflection on emotional responses impacts performance on the same reasoning task. Participants asked to reflect on their emotions performed more poorly on the reasoning task than participants asked to reflect on the task's cognitive aspects. People who endorse greater affect tolerance performed better in the cognitive reflection condition than the emotional reflection condition. People with less tolerance performed the same in both conditions. Overall, these studies support previous findings that emotion can negatively impact performance on reasoning tasks but suggest a more complex relationship for affect intolerance.
Subject(s)
Emotions , Problem Solving , Humans , Emotions/physiologyABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to examine the characteristics of Internet memes created and disseminated by proponents and opponents of vaccinations. A quantitative content analysis was performed on 234 pro- and antivaccine memes culled from the vaccination fan pages with the greatest number of followers on Facebook. Coding variables included whether the meme was pro- or antivaccine, percentage of factually incorrect claims, mention of the out-group, persuasive appeals (emotion, fear, and rationality), degree of sarcasm, and number of reactions and shares. The most prevalent themes concerned vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccine injury/safety/autism, and conspiracy theories. Independent t tests indicated that provaccination memes were more likely to use sarcasm whereas antivaccination memes were more likely to contain emotion and fear appeals and inaccurate claims. The percentage veracity of the claims in each meme was fact-checked using authoritative scientific sources. A path analysis applying structural equation modeling revealed that memes containing characteristics that were antivaccine (vs. provaccine), appealed to emotion, and appealed to rationality significantly contributed to greater likelihood of social media reactions and shares. Additional analysis determined that both pro- and antivaccination memes tended to contain more gist than verbatim information, and both groups did not significantly differ on this gist-to-verbatim variable. Findings offer insights to understand the persuasion tactics that provaccine and antivaccine groups apply in memes to persuade others via social media. Understanding these techniques will enable the development of health communication strategies to combat false and damaging vaccine information disseminated on the Internet.
