Evaluation of environmental problems: A coherence model of cognition and emotion

Abstract

This article presents a computational framework for understanding how media information about environmental problems influences cognition, emotion, and behaviour. The theoretical assumptions are formally specified and implemented in the computer model ITERA (Intuitive Thinking in Environmental Risk Appraisal) using a constraint satisfaction network.The model makes predictions about the cognitive evaluation of environmental problems, about the development of distinct emotions (anger and sadness), and about the resulting action tendencies. In addition, the model describes how cognitions and emotions interact in making judgements entailing coherence biases. In three experiments (N = 258), we presented manipulated media reports about environmental damages. The effects of three variables (knowledge about the riskiness of an action; higher goal of the actor; voluntariness of the actor) were compared with the model's predictions. The empirical data confirmed the predicted coherence effects for the cognitive appraisal. Likewise, the model's predictions for anger corresponded well with the empirical results. Assumptions concerning sadness, however, were only partially confirmed.Cognitive psychology and cognitive science so far have largely neglected the important role of emotion in human judgement and decision making. For example, state of the art psychological reviews and books about thinking, two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We thank Paul Thagard for providing the source code of IMP on which the implementation of ITERA is based upon.

Informing about climate change and invasive species: how the presentation of information affects perception of risk, emotions, and learning

“…In addition, research on appraisal theories of emotions has clearly shown that different emotions correspond with different patterns of appraising a situation (Nerb and Spada 2001;Ortony, Clore, and Collins 1988;Reisenzein and Hofmann 1993; for an overview, see Scherer 1999). Appraisal theories define appraisal as the cognitive evaluation of a situation with respect to the demands, constraints, and resources in the situation on the one hand, and the goals and resources of the individual on the other.…”

“…If responsibility for a negative outcome is attributed to human causes, anger is typically the main emotion (Keltner, Ellsworth, and Edwards 1993). By manipulating media reports on environmental accidents involving supertankers, Nerb and Spada (2001) found that emphasizing human causes elicited more anger than emphasizing natural causes. Additionally, guilt may be elicited when people consider themselves responsible for negative consequences (Weiner 1995).…”

“…On a general level, appraisal theories differentiate between positive, negative, and mixed emotions depending on the situation evaluation as positive, negative, or ambiguous. To differentiate between emotions, attribution of responsibility is assumed to play a key role (Nerb and Spada 2001;Nerb, Bender, and Spada 2008;Roseman, Antoniou, and Jose 1996). If responsibility for a negative outcome is attributed to human causes, anger is typically the main emotion (Keltner, Ellsworth, and Edwards 1993).…”

“…Based on appraisal theory and the results of Nerb and Spada (2001), we expected that a variation in the responsible agent's emphasis, that is, naming either natural or human causes for climate change and its consequences (i.e. invasive species in our study), would lead to differences in the specific emotions anger, sadness, and guilt.…”

“…General affectedness refers to an overall arousal elicited by the information presented. All items were taken from Nerb and Spada (2001) and questions were formulated as follows: 'How affected/angry/sad/guilty do you feel after reading the information about local climate change/common ragweed/Himalayan balsam/horse chestnut leaf miner/the Asian lady beetle?' (1 = not at all affected/ angry/sad/guilty to 5 = very affected/angry/sad/guilty).…”