SSRN-Id1644637-1_does Fear Motivate Critical Evaluation of Political Arguments

8/6/2019 SSRN-Id1644637-1_does Fear Motivate Critical Evaluation of Political Arguments

1/43

Does Fear Motivate Critical Evaluations of Political Arguments?

Emotion and Dual-Processing Models of Persuasion

John CrydermanPh.D. Candidate

Department of Political [email protected]

Kevin ArceneauxAssociate Professor

Department of Political ScienceInstitute for Public Affairs Faculty Affiliate

[email protected]

Temple University408 Gladfelter Hall

1115 W. Berks St.Philadelphia, PA 19122

Abstract

Under what conditions are individuals persuaded by political arguments encountered in the

news? In this project, we integrate recent political science research on the effects of fear on

persuasion with dual process models of persuasion from cognitive psychology and the Extended

Parallel Processing Model developed in the fear appeal literature. These models predict that

anxiety motivates a mixture of systematic and heuristic processing when individuals evaluate a

persuasive message. Two experimental studies demonstrate that in an anxious state, individuals

appear to rely on easy to use heuristics like source cues to gauge the effectiveness of the

proposed solution. The second experimental study offers evidence that personal involvement

with the issue may moderate this effect, with highly involved individuals choosing to engage in

systematic processing when anxious. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings as

well as avenues for additional research.

Prepared for presentation at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political ScienceAssociation, Washington, D.C., September 1 5.


2/43

The affective intelligence (AI) model is a concise and elegant solution to a debate

between rational choice and partisanship based voter models, and does so by integrating affect

into the calculus of voting (Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen, 2000). Emotions push voters to

either rely on habits, such as partisanship, or seek novel solutions through reasoning to make a

decision about how to vote. This move is empirically satisfying because we know that campaigns

spend a great deal of time attempting to arouse voters emotions. Campaigns do this because they

think that voters can be affected and, therefore, persuaded or mobilized by the manipulation of

their emotions. Thus, the general nature of the AI model makes it an appealing analytical tool to

understanding all forms of political communication.

Applications of the AI models have mostly focused on the role that anxiety and

enthusiasm plays in attitude formation process (Brader, 2005; Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen,

2000). In this project, we are particularly interested in the models prediction that anxiety leads

people to seek alternative solutions, minimizing their reliance on political habits and decision

heuristics. If this is the case, it suggests that the use of fear appeals by political actors may

actually lead voters to make more reasoned decisions (Gartsen, 2006). However, psychological

models drawn from the vast literature on fear appeals suggests that the way in which individuals

react to anxiety-inducing situations is more complicated than the AI model suggests.

Specifically, individuals must judge the solution advocated by a fear appeal to be effective and

individuals sometimes rely on heuristics when reaching a decision about the effectiveness of a

proposed solution. We posit that individuals may rely on external cues from the source of the

message and their predispositions when assessing the perceived effectiveness of a solution.

We conduct two randomized experiments to investigate the effects of fear appeals on the

degree to which individuals engage in systematic, objective (i.e., rational) processing of


3/43

information. The results from these experiments suggest that fear appeals do not always reduce

individuals reliance on habits and they do not always increase individuals openness to

persuasion.

The Affective Intelligence Model

The theory of affective intelligence serves to reconcile the partisanship-dominated model

of voting with the rational choice model of voting by integrating emotion into information

processing. Underlying the AI model is a simple empirical fact derived from neurobiology that

individuals process sensory information affectively before they process information cognitively

(Marcus, 1988, 2002, 2003; Marcus and Mackuen, 1993; Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen,

2000). Emotions are an information filter that helps to mitigate the high cost of cognition by

focusing our attention on only those bits of the environment that matter.

The AI model contends that specific emotions will have potentially different effects on

information processing. Positive emotions, particularly enthusiasm, leads individuals to process

information shallowly because they can safely rely on their habits and learned behaviors to guide

them through their environment. Anxiety, and fear-triggered anxiety, will focus the mind on

threatening objects in the environment forcing the individual to cognitively process the novel

information in order to cope with the situation. Thus, fear acts as a surveillance system that alerts

individuals to potential threats in the environment and motivates individuals to survey the

situation and develop effective solutions to meet perceived threats. Specifically, the AI model

anticipates that anxiety has three effects on cognition. First, anxious individuals take longer to

process information as they search for incongruities, dangers, and possible solutions. Second,

anxious individuals seek out additional information in order to find a means to overcome, even

normalize, the novel situation they confront. Third, anxious individuals are more critical of the


4/43

information they receive since the novel situation can present a significant challenge to their

sense of self, core beliefs, etc. (Marcus, Neuman, and Mackuen, 2000; Mackuen, Marcus,

Neuman, and Keele, 2007).

Proponents of the AI model hypothesize that enthusiastic individuals rely on habits, such

as partisanship, to make political decisions while anxious individuals rely on reason. Enthusiasm

and happiness signal that current modes of behavior are successful at achieving desired goals.

Relying on partisanship to make voting decisions is a low cost means of making a relatively

dependable choice. Republican partisans generally find that Republican politicians have

preferences closer to their own than Democratic politicians, and under normal circumstances

there is not a whole lot of reason for individuals to think about their vote choice (Downs 1957;

Key 1966). If, throughout a political campaign, individuals experience enthusiasm about their

candidate it signals that the habitual choice is the right choice and reinforces their reliance on

partisanship as a decision heuristic (Marcus and Mackuen, 1993).

Thus, individuals have the ability to make political decisions based on habits or

reasoning. The former method is a low cost means of making accurate decisions that will work

most of the time because the worlds we occupy are remarkably stable. The latter method is

costly both in terms of time and cognitive capacity, and as cognitive misers, it is rational for

individuals to use this system sparingly. Emotions allow people to restrict the use of their

cognitive capacity to only those situations that demand it. In effect, the AI models predicts that

there is no inherent conflict between the partisan model of voting or the rational choice model,

instead individuals can engage in either method contingent upon their emotional state.

The AI model is more or less agnostic about the genesis of peoples emotions. The

source can come from aspects of the external environment, such as incongruities between the


5/43

candidates positions and the voter (e.g., Redlawsk, Civettini, and Lau 2007) or it can come from

communication deployed by the campaigns themselves (e.g., Brader 2005). In this paper, we are

interested in the effects of emotional appeals particularly fear appeals. As we discuss in the

next section, a massive literature in the field of communication has been devoted to this topic.

Insights from this literature suggest useful refinements to the AI model.

Fear Appeals

A fear appeal is a persuasive communication attempting to arouse fear in order to

promote precautionary motivation and self-protective action (Ruiter, Abraham, and Kok, 2001).

It consists of two parts: The first is the presentation of a threat, and the second is a

recommendation by the author of how to relieve the fear (Witte, 1992). When applied to politics,

any advertisement, news editorial, or new report that highlights the potential dangers of voting

for the opposition or the status quo and then offers a solution (i.e., vote for me) can be classified

as a fear appeal.

Scholars in the fear appeals literature have drawn insights from two important

information processing models. First, dual processing models of persuasion developed in

cognitive psychology (Chaiken, Liberaman, and Eagly, 1989; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) argue

that when individuals are confronted with persuasive materials they can either process that

information centrally/systematically or peripherally/heuristically. The central/systematic route

involves the respondent critically reading and evaluating the arguments to come to a decision

about the viability of the message. This processing route is cognitively demanding, though

changes in attitudes that due occur are likely to be enduring. Individuals can also process the

argument peripherally/heuristically and this means that individuals rely on cognitive shortcuts

such as author credibility and the number of arguments presented in favor or against a


6/43

proposition to determine whether they agree or not. This form of information processing is

shallow, and any belief changes will likely be temporary.

Second, researchers have used insights derived from the Extended Parallel Processing

Model (EPPM) to understand how fear influences information processing. The major insight of

the EPPM is that the fear appeal initiates two cognitive appraisals within individuals. First,

individuals evaluate the perceived threat contained within the appeal, if the threat is perceived to

be low, individuals will largely ignore the message. However, if the individual judges the level

of threat as moderate to high, then the individual will focus their attention to the recommended

response of the fear appeal. Individuals use two criteria to evaluate the suggested response,

feasibility (can I reasonably carry out this action) and effectiveness (does the solution actually

solve the problem). If the individual deems the proposed solution as both feasible and effective,

they will engage in a process of danger control, a process in which individuals confront the

danger directly and attempt to resolve the threat by changing their attitudes, goals, or their

behavior. If, however, the proposal fails to meet the two criteria, individuals are expected to

engage in a process of fear control, in which individuals chose to deal with only their feelings of

fear by engaging in some form of denial. Since fear control is maladaptive since it fails to resolve

the threat, fear is likely to persist which feeds back into perceptions of the threat (Witte, 1992).

Like the AI model, EPPM suggests that fear and anxiety motivates individuals towards an

effortful processing of information (Tanner, Hunt, and Eppright, 1991; and Das, de Wit, and

Stroebe, 2003); however, under certain conditions this may not be the case. Moreover, even if

individuals are engaging in effortful processing, there is no guarantee that they are doing so in an

objective and rational fashion. Combining dual process models of persuasion and EPPM,

psychologists have identified at least three different ways fear may influence how individuals


7/43

process information contained within the fear appeal. First, individuals may process the

proposed solution systemically or heuristically based on their sense of vulnerability to the threat

or expectations about the quality of the solution being presented. Second, individuals can engage

in defensive or objective processing of arguments contained within the fear appeal based on the

relevance of the message or their commitment to their worldview. Finally, individuals may

engage in fear control or danger control behaviors depending upon the perceived efficacy of the

presented solution.

If the fear appeal successfully makes individuals feel vulnerable to the threat, they are

likely to accept the solution regardless of the quality of arguments made in support of the

solution because vulnerable individuals have an intense desire to feel more secure (Das, de Wit,

and Stroebe, 2003). Vulnerability, then, can make individuals behave irrationally in the context

of the rational voter model by causing by short-circuiting the objective evaluation of each

alternative. This same situation can also occur depending upon how the fear appeal is structured,

in particular, if the respondent is told ahead of the presentation of the fear appeal that the solution

presented will be effective, individuals will not spend much cognitive effort evaluating the

proposed solution; however, if the source is ambiguous about efficacy of the solution you will

see individuals deeply engaged in deliberation over the presented evidence (Gleicher and Petty,

1992).

Fear and anxiety may motivate individuals to deliberate; however, their deliberation need

not be objective. When individuals use their cognitive resources in order to defend their prior

beliefs or justify their current behaviors individuals are engaging in defensive processing. Under

these circumstances individuals are using their cognition selectively by accepting evidence that

supports their beliefs while devaluing or rejecting any information that counters their current


8/43

positions (Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly, 1989). The rational choice model of voting assumes

that individuals are objective when evaluating the evidence in order to select a candidate that

best matches their preferences; thus, defensive processing cannot be said to be rational (Downs,

1957). Individuals are likely to engage in defensive processing under at least two conditions.

First, individuals may find the information highly relevant to them and are engaged in behaviors

that the fear appeal advocates against. In this circumstance individuals are likely to find reasons

to justify their behavior by either minimizing the threat or by finding weaknesses in the solution

presented (Liberman and Chaiken, 1992). Second, individuals may have a strong commitment to

a particular worldview. A fear appeal that threatens this worldview could be devastating to the

sense of self, especially if the fear appeal suggests that their worldview may lead to life

threatening consequences. In this case, individuals are likely to engage in defensive processing

as a way to preserve their sense of self derived from the worldview (Shehryar and Hunt, 2005).

Individuals who do not find the appeal relevant, or who do not have a strong commitment to a

particular worldview are more likely to engage in objective processing, and hence act more

rationally.

Finally, even in instances where a fear appeal motivates individuals to engage in

objective processing, some individuals will engage in fear control if they find that the solution

presented to be flawed. For instance, people who reject the proposed solution in a fear appeal

may cope with the anxiety induced by the message by adopting some form of denial or

avoidance of the problem. It is only if the individual finds the solution to be effective and that

they have the capacity to carry out the activity, the individual is more likely to engage in a form

of danger control in which the individual will directly confront the problem in their outer-world

in order to take control over the danger (Leventhal, 1971; Witte, 1992; Witte and Allen, 2000).


9/43

In sum, the fear appeal literature suggests a more complicated picture than the AI model

does with respect to the relationship between fear, anxiety and information processing. While

fear appeals can make individuals more open to persuasion, it is first necessary that message

recipients find the recommend action to be effective at resolving the threat highlighted by the

fear appeal. More important, by inducing anxiety, fear appeals neither guarantee that recipients

will view the recommended action as effective, nor does it guarantee that they will engage in

effortful processing to arrive at a belief about the effectiveness of the recommended action.

Indeed, people may rely on heuristics to do so. Of course, much of the work in the fear appeal

literature has been related to public health and product marketing. Consequently, it is possible

that the more complicated EPPM does not apply to political communication. The experiments

that follow test the validity of the simple AI model in order to determine if political scientists

need to develop and apply a more complex model of how affect effects voters and decision

making in politics.

Hypotheses

The standard approach to investigating the degree to which messages motivate

individuals to engage in effortful process involves measuring the interaction between argument

strength and the individual-level propensity to engage in effortful processing (need for

cognition). Individuals who possess a low need for cognition typically do not process messages

in a systematic fashion and, therefore, fail to distinguish between strong and weak messages

finding both equally persuasive. Individuals with a high need for cognition, on the other hand,

enjoy effortful thinking and typically process messages systematically. As a result, these

individuals are able to distinguish between weak and strong arguments, opting for

recommendation in the strong argument over the weak one.


10/43

If anxiety motivates systematic processing, as the AI model predicts, then one would

expect than fear appeals cause individuals with low need for cognition to process systematically

and, consequently, distinguish between strong and weak messages in the same way individuals

with high need for cognition do.

Anxiety-induced systematic processing hypothesis: In situations that induce anxiety, both

individuals who are low and high in their need for cognition will distinguish between weak

and strong arguments by being more likely to accept the recommendation advocated by the

strong argument than the weak argument.

On the other hand, if the EPPM model is accurate, anxious individuals will assess the

effectiveness of the message using easy-to-use heuristics. Since individuals who are low in need

for cognition tend to process messages heuristically, we are more likely to observe heuristic

processing among individuals who are high in need for cognition.

Anxiety-induced heuristic processing hypothesis: In situations that induce anxiety,

individuals who are high in need for cognition will treat weak and strong arguments

equivalently and accept or reject the recommendation based easy-to-use heuristics.

Study 1

Participants

In the spring of 2008, we recruited 200 subjects from a large northeastern university to

participate in a study about information processing. Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 56, but

young adults make up the bulk of the sample (M = 21.5). In terms of ethnicity, 73 percent of the

sample identified as white, 7.5 percent as black or African American, 9.5 percent as Asian, and

10 percent as Asian or other. The median family income category reported was $65,000 to

$80,000 and 57.3 percent of sample was male.


11/43

Procedures

We employed a 2 x 2 design that manipulates the level of induced anxiety (low/high) and

the strength of the argument (weak/strong). Subjects were randomly assigned to the four

resulting conditions (n = 50 in each). All conditions consisted of two elements, first a priming

article followed by the fear appeal that respondents were asked to evaluate.

In the low anxiety condition, individuals were exposed to a neutral priming on-line article

from a science and technology magazine about the recent completion of the Large Hadron

Collider in Switzerland. The article was short and had no information relevant to the second

article they were asked to critically evaluate. In the high anxiety condition, individuals were

presented with an on-line San Diego Union Tribune article about the possible health threats of

anthrax. This article was modified by the researchers to be short and concentrate on how anthrax

works in the human body. This prime was directly related to the fear appeal article, though

respondents did not know this.

The fear appeal article was presented to respondents as a New York Times On-line article

that assessed the threat of major American cities to an attack by terrorists using anthrax. See

appendix for the full text. In the low anxiety condition, individuals were told that the threat of an

anthrax attack was minimal to non-existent. In the high anxiety condition, individuals were told

that American cities were highly vulnerable to attack and that the terrorists were highly capable

of carrying out such an attack.

Within the fear appeal article, respondents were presented with a solution from the

RAND corporation. The solution presented to all respondents was a mandatory anthrax

vaccination schedule for those living in cities. In the strong argument condition, individuals were

told that the costs would be minimal, and the vaccines were highly safe and very effective. In the


12/43

weak argument condition, individuals were told that the costs would be very high, that the

vaccine had many safety concerns, and was not very effective. Respondents were then asked to

evaluate the persuasiveness of the article and the effectiveness of the solution.

Measures

We measured subjects opinion about the action recommended by the fear appeal we

employed by asking on the post-test survey, In your assessment, should the government adopt a

policy of mandatory vaccinations for vulnerable populations? Subjects placed their answers on

a 9-point scale, running from 0 to 8 where 0 indicated definitively oppose and 8 indicated

definitely support. Following the extensive work Petty and Cacioppo, we measured subjects

propensity to engage in effortful processing with the need for cognition battery (Cacioppo and

Petty 1982) on the pre-test. The 18-item battery scaled quite well ( = 0.904). As per standard

practice we identified individuals high in need for cognition as those who were above the mean

on this scale and individuals low in need for cognition as those who were below the mean.

We measured subjects emotional reaction to the message by asking them to complete an

11-item battery drawn from the PANAS-X protocol after reading the article (Watson and Clark

1994). Subjects were giving the following instructions: Below are a list of common feelings.

Please tell us how much or how little you feel these emotions while reading the article. The

battery featured both positive and negative emotions to help mask our interest in measuring

anxiety (guilty, excited, scared, distressed, enthusiastic, inspired, interested, afraid, ashamed,

proud, and nervous). Subjects placed their self-assessments of their emotions they felt while

reading the article on a 9-point scale, which ranged from 0 to 8 where 0 indicated did not feel at

all and 9 indicated felt more than ever before. We measured felt anxiety by taking the

average of responses to the scared, distressed, afraid, and nervous items ( = 0.949).


13/43

Results

As a manipulation check, we find that subjects who read the high-fear article, irrespective

of argument strength, reported feeling higher levels of anxiety on the post-test (Mlow-fear= 1.415,

Mhigh-fear= 2.425; t199 = 3.88,p < 0.001). We test our hypotheses by regressing indicators for the

high-fear article, the strong article, and their interaction on attitudes toward mandatory

vaccinations separately for individuals who are low in need for cognition and high in need for

cognition. The results are displayed in Table 1.

[Table 1 about here]

Because the source of the policy recommendation is from the respected non-profit policy

think tank, the RAND Corporation, we expect that this would behave as a formidable heuristic.

Consequently, if individuals do not systematically process the arguments presented in the article,

we expect that they would adopt the recommendation that vulnerable populations be subject to

mandatory vaccinations irrespective of the strength of the argument. As Figure 1 shows, this is

the exact pattern that we observe among individuals who are low in need for cognition and

among those who are high in need for cognition in the high-fear condition. It is only individuals

who are high in need for cognition in the low-fear condition who distinguish between weak and

strong messages as expected i.e., being more likely to opt for the recommend action after

reading the strong argument (t98 = 2.12,p < 0.037, two-tailed). In contrast, high need for

cognition subjects in the high-fear condition appear to process the argument heuristically by

accepting the recommendation proposed by policy experts, although the interaction between

argument strength and the anxiety manipulation, while large, misses standard levels of statistical

significance (Strength xHigh Fear= -1.18, t98 = -1.13,p = 0.131 one-tailed). This pattern is

consistent with theAnxiety-induced heuristic processing hypothesis. Contrary to the AI model,


14/43

we do not find evidence that anxiety caused individuals to process messages systematically.

Rather, it appears that if anything, the high-fear appeal led individuals to rely on heuristics when

sorting out the effectiveness of the proposed action.

Study 2

A limitation to Study 1 is the fact that the emotion was manipulated through the message

itself. While this is a common element of fear appeals, it confounds emotional cues with the

argument and may encourage heuristic processing since emotion can be conceptualized as a

heuristic (Rahn 2000). We address this limitation in the following study by decoupling the

manipulation of emotion from the arguments subjects are asked to evaluate.

Participants

In the fall of 2009, we recruited 244 subjects from a large public university in the

northeast to participate in a public opinion study. Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 60, but

young adults make up the bulk of the sample (M = 20.5). In terms of ethnicity, 63.1 percent of

the sample identified as white, 15.6 percent as black or African American, 12.7 percent as Asian,

and the remainder as Latino/a or other. The median family income category reported was

$50,000 to $65,000 and 52.5 percent of sample was female.

Procedures

Like Study 1, we employed a 2 x 2 design in which anxiety (low/high) and argument

strength (weak/strong) were manipulated. Unlike Study 1, we manipulated anxiety by asking

subjects to view a series of pictures under the pretext that we were interested in testing out new

survey tools to understand how individuals react to images in the media. The images were

drawn from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) database collected by the Center

for the Study of Emotion and Attention (CSEA). The purpose of CSEA is three-fold. First, the


15/43

database gives researchers a set of images that provoke reliable emotional responses that allows

for better experimental control. Second, the database allows for easy comparison of results

across a broad range of studies. Third, the standardized pictures allow for reliable reproduction

of results (Lang, Bradley and Cuthbert, 2008). Subjects were asked to view either five pictures

that, according norming studies, reliably induce feelings of anxiety (Images: 1300, 2120, 3530,

6370, and 9940) or five pictures that reliably induce feelings of contentment (Images: 1710,

2154, 5825, 7502, and 8501). After subjects completed the picture-viewing task, they were

asked to read distracter article unrelated to the target editorial but consistent with the emotion

manipulation (the threat swine flu in the anxiety condition and the revitalization of New Orleans

in the contentment condition).

Following the distracter article, subjects were asked to read a target editorial about the F-

22 Raptor Program. See appendix for the full text. For all respondents, the article was made to

look like a photocopied clipping from the New York Times editorial page (as opposed to an on-

line article). In addition, the headline, author (a retired military major general), and center blurb

were the same regardless of the experimental condition. In the strong argument condition,

respondents were told that current, non-stealth aircraft were vulnerable to enemy forces, the costs

of the plane were reasonable, that they were safe and effective, and that the military wanted them

because of their technical superiority. In the weak argument conditions, respondents were told

that the F-22 program was essentially a pork barrel project that was good for the state of Georgia,

that the planes were costly, unsafe, and ineffective, and that the threat they were designed for

was non-existent.

Measures

After the target editorial, subjects were asked Should the federal government continue to


16/43

fund the F-22 Raptor program? Subject placed their answers on a 9-point scale where 0 =

absolutely not and 8 = definitely yes. Need for cognition was measured using the same

battery employed in Study 1 ( = 0.888) with subjects above the mean on the scale categorized

as high in need for cognition and those below the mean categorized as low in need for cognition.

Self-reported emotions were measured after the emotional manipulation (but before the editorial)

using the same PANAS-X battery used in Study 1 and the anxiety scale was created from the

same emotional markers ( = 0.938).

Results

A manipulation check shows that subjects who viewed the anxiety-inducing pictures

indeed reported higher levels of anxiety than those who viewed the contentment-inducing

pictures (Mlow-fear= 1.637, Mhigh-fear = 3.153; t243 = 5.72,p < 0.001). As we did in Study 1, we

test the hypotheses by regressing indicators for the treatment conditions and their interaction on

support for the F-22 program, constructing separate models for low and high need for cognition

individuals. The results are displayed in first two columns of Table 2.

[Table 2 about here]

The student-body at the public university at which the study was conducted tends to be

quite liberal, much like the surrounding urban setting, and largely opposed to military programs.

Consequently, we expect that the source of the editorial a retired general will be a negative

source cue for most of our subjects. If so, heuristic processing would entail rejecting the

recommendation of the message irrespective of argument strength. The pattern of results shown

in Figure 2 is consistent with theAnxiety-induced heuristic processing hypothesis. Induced

anxiety does not appear to promote systematic processing among subjects low in need for

cognition, as they did not respond to the strength of the argument. Meanwhile, those who posses


17/43

high-need for cognition only distinguish between weak and strong arguments in the low fear

condition (t120 = 3.44,p < 0.001). As we saw in Study 1, subjects in the high fear condition who

are high in need for cognition did not distinguish between weak and strong arguments (t120 = -

0.01, NS) and consistent with our expectation about the negative source cue, high need for

cognition individuals in the high fear condition rejected the recommendation of the message

irrespective of argument strength (Strength xHigh Fear= -1.75, t120 = -2.32,p = 0.011 one-

tailed).

[Figure 2 about here]

The model in the third column of Table 2 verifies our inference that heuristics are playing

a role in argument processing. Here we tested for an interaction between conservatism and the

treatments. On the pre-test instrument, we asked subjects to identify their ideological orientation

and based on this question we identified conservatives (n = 46) and non-conservatives (i.e.,

moderates and liberals). These results are displayed graphically in Figure 3. Non-conservatives

in the low-fear condition distinguished weak and strong arguments (t242 = 3.07,p < 0.01),

whereas non-conservatives in the high-fear condition did not distinguish between weak and

strong messages (t242 = .36, NS) and rejected the recommended action to preserve the F-22

program (Strength xHigh Fear= -1.11, t120 = -1.92,p = 0.028 one-tailed). Conservatives, on the

other hand, appear to be motivated by anxiety to sort out weak and strong arguments (t242 = 2.02,

p = 0.045). Indeed, the three-way interaction shows that conservatives and non-conservatives in

the anxious process this argument quite differentially (Strength xHigh Fearx Conservative =

2.222, t120 = 1.66,p = 0.099 two-tailed). These findings are consistent with EPPM: Anxious

non-conservatives rely on an easy to use heuristic (i.e., military leaders are not trustworthy) to

preserve their worldview and reject the recommendation to increase military spending, while


18/43

anxious conservatives who generally wish to strengthen the military are motivated to sort out the

effectiveness of the recommendation through systematic processing.

Discussion

The two experiments presented above strongly suggest that the relationship between

anxiety and the cognitive processing of information is not clear when we examine how

individuals process the information contained within fear appeals. The first experiment shows

that individuals in the high fear condition were likely reacting to the quality of the source, a basic

heuristic, to make evaluate the quality of the argument. At a general level, the same result holds

in the second experiment as those in the high fear condition, regardless of their need for

cognition, evaluated the solution in a heuristic fashion, and this occurred when fear was

provoked independent of the argument. The results strongly suggest that anxiety does not always

stimulate central route processing as suggested by the AI model. Instead, fear pushes individuals

to take a look at the source of the argument and decide if the source is credible, if credible, they

tend to support the proposed solution regardless of the quality of argument presented. Only those

individuals with high need for cognition in the low fear condition systemically processed the

evidence presented to them.

Our second experiment did uncover a potentially interesting relationship between

partisanship, fear, and systemic processing. Fearful conservatives tended to critically evaluate the

argument presented to them, and the results indicate they did so because they accepted the

credibility of the author. Those who were unlikely to accept the author's credibility, the non-

conservatives, did not even bother to have a look at the argument presented in support of the F-

22 program. This suggests that individuals seek out reassurance about the efficacy of the solution

before they commit their cognitive resources to evaluating the answer. This corresponds to the


19/43

fear appeal work conducted by Liberaman and Chaiken (1992). The results also suggest that

individual differences in interests may play a significant role in how individuals process fear

appeals. In this case, it is likely that conservatives are more interested in military policy than

their non-conservative peers, and fear may make their heightened interest more salient. This, in

turn, causes conservatives to dedicate cognitive resources to the problem at hand. If this were the

case, it would correspond to the original work on dual processing models which argue that

individual interest is a key independent variable that promotes central route processing (Petty

and Cacioppo, 1986; Chaiken, et al., 1989). Thus, fear interacts with interest, making individuals

more prone to systemically processing the content of a fear appeal.

Of course, our studies are not without limitations, and we see many avenues for future

research. In our two experiments, we kept the source cues the same for all respondents, the

results suggest that source cues may have a substantial impact on the individual's propensity to

engage in central route processing. Thus, an experiment that randomly manipulates the

credibility of the source could shed light on the importance of this heuristic in argument

evaluation. In order to understand the role interest plays in the processing of fear appeals another

experiment could ask individuals to rank a number issues in importance or interest to them, and

then present them with an article that is either highly relevant to their interests or completely

irrelevant to their interests. The idea would be to capture the interaction of fear and issue interest

on argument processing.

In addition, we must elaborate more clearly the role that threat plays in political contexts.

The EPPM suggests that only individuals of moderate to high levels of fear are likely to carefully

examine the merits of the presented solution. The obvious problem is that we do not know how

threatening people find political fear appeals, especially as they compare to public health


20/43

oriented fear appeals. Fear in the political arena is often more abstract and conceptual in nature

and most political dangers individuals will confront are likely to have only a slight and indirect

effect on their lives. Moreover, the solutions presented to individuals are not likely to directly

impact the problem since political issues generally take some form of collective action to solve.

Political threats may not be as threatening as public health fear appeals and even the best

solutions are likely to be ineffectual, especially in comparison to public health solutions which

generally promote solutions that individuals can carry out on their own. This would suggest that

only the most politically interested individuals with strong worldviews are likely to be provoked

by political fear appeals, and these are the individuals who are most likely to process information

in a biased fashion given their inherent biases.

Testing this hypothesis would be difficult. It may be reasonable to ask individuals to sort

a range of threats (from immediate health threats such as stress to more distal threats such as

increasing hostilities in the Korean Peninsula) from the most personally threatening to the least

threatening. This may indicate the capacity of political fear appeals to break the medium fear

threshold, and what types of individuals who are most likely to respond to political fear appeals.

Source cues may also play a role, for if a credible source argues that a political threat is

something the public should care about, this may raise the perceived threat level of a fear appeal

making individuals more likely to engage in some form of central route processing (be it

objective or biased).

Reconfiguring the AI Model

Our results coupled with the extensive psychology literature on fear appeals and

persuasion suggests that the AI model needs to be complicated in order to better capture the

relationship between emotion and reasoning. We present our alternative in figure 4 below:


21/43

[Figure 4 about here]

The current state of the research strongly argues that emotions are fundamental to the

decision making process, and emotions are provoked by the political environment or geography

where the individual lives. Our experimental work did not test the relationship between

enthusiasm and political decision making, so we leave that part of the AI model alone (Mackuen,

Marcus, Neuman, and Keele, 2007). However, our work strongly suggests that scholars need to

significantly reconsider the role of anxiety and fear play in the cognitive process. In accordance

with our results, we suggest that after individuals experience fear, they immediately search for

reassurance about the solution being proposed to them, to this end, individuals rely on source

cues to make their initial assessment of the efficacy of the proposed solution. If individuals fail

to find the source credible, they will reject the solution regardless of argument strength and likely

rely on their habituated preferences and choices when making their political decision. This can

been seen in the second major division in the model.

Yet if individuals find the source to be effective, they will then engage in central route

processing, as shown in the final stage of the model. This means they will carefully read the

solution and the justifying evidence to determine if the solution is effective. If the individual

finds the solution to be effective, then they will engage in a process of danger control where they

modify their behavior and choices in order to remove the source of fear. Because their behavior

modification is a product of central route processing the changes are likely to be enduring.

Conversely, if the individual find the solution to be ineffective individuals are likely to engage in

a process of fear control, where they try to calm their fears by denying the existence of the fear in

the first place. In short, these individuals will likely rely on their habituated preferences to make

a decision.


22/43

The literature review and conclusion also suggested a series of additional variables that

would likely impact how individuals evaluate the source cue as well as the proposed solution.

These variables include the individual's interest in the topic, the strength of their worldview (in

this case partisanship and ideology), and the nature of their behavior and whether the fear appeal

suggests that their behavior is the cause of the problem causing fear. These three variables

determine the degree to which individuals engage in defensive or objective processing of the

proposed solution, though testing the impact of these variables is out of the scope of this paper.

These modifications to the structure of the AI model make the model itself more

satisfying because a hard reading of the AI literature argues that anxious individuals become

objective information processing machines regardless of their standing political identification.

Thus, anxious voters resemble floating voters who can be moved in any direction given the

campaign environment (Zaller 2004). The AI model suggests that far more individuals should be

crossing partisan lines (in both directions depending on how anxious individuals become) than is

witnessed in any given election. By qualifying the impact of anxiety on decision making, we

show that far fewer anxious individuals are likely to change their preferences over the course of a

campaign since there are multiple ways in which they can reject the content of the message even

if the arguments presented for a solution are particularly strong. This is demonstrated in the

model via the multiple routes that terminate in the individual relying on their habituated

preferences to determine their choices. In our modified model, it is only those individuals who

experience anxiety, trust the source, and find the proposed solution effective that are likely to

change their political preferences, and this is the case only if the individual does not have a

strong worldview, a high level of interest, or are engaged in behaviors counter to the proposed

solution.


23/43

Appendix: Experimental Materials

Experiment 1 Fear Priming Article:

Hot on the Trail of Anthrax: Deadly bacterium is deceptive and tough

By Scott LaFee

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Imagine strolling out to your mailbox one bright, sunny morning. You take out your usual mail -the coupons, the bills - and then you notice an interesting letter. As soon as you open the letter,you notice faint traces of a white powder blowing into the air. Days later, you're dead.

Anthrax-laced letters may be a remote threat, but the thought of actually receiving one is enoughto cause fear. In 2001, five people died as a result of bio-terror attacks.

Researchers at San Diego State recently proved that anthrax is able to penetrate the blood-brainbarrier, a barrier that keeps dangerous viruses and bacteria from entering the brain. Thisinformation will allow further investigation into ways to stop the spread of the bacteria and makethe bio-terror threats less effective.

"I am excited about our research as I believe that the more we understand the basic mechanismsby which Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) interacts with the human host to cause disease, the betterequipped we will be in designing therapies and preventative treatments," Dr. Kelly Doran, SDSUlead researcher, microbiologist and professor, said.

Doran explained how genes are turned on to make proteins that eventually signal an immune

response. White blood cells come to the site of the infection to fight bacteria from spreading intothe brain.

"In this current study, we show that the anthrax bacterium blocks this signaling process; meaningthe bacteria and specifically the toxins, turn off those same genes," Doran said. "Thus theimmune response is impaired, which gives the bacteria free reign to continue spreading into thebrain to cause disease."

With the immune system impaired, the bacteria can penetrate the blood-brain barrier andmultiply rapidly, causing meningitis and CNS infection - both infections of the nervous system.

The symptoms of anthrax meningitis are stiffness and pain in the neck in addition to fever,fatigue, headache, nausea, vomiting and sometimes agitation, seizures and delirium. Thesesymptoms could be followed by a rapid neurological degeneration and death. Bacterialinfections, including those caused by anthrax, are fatal if not treated with antibiotics, Doran said.

"The human BBB (blood brain barrier), which is comprised principally of a single-layer ofspecialized brain microvascular endothelial cells serves as a critical barrier to maintain the


24/43

protective environment of the central nervous system," Doran said. "It also serves as a barrieragainst microbial invasions."

The anthrax bacteria can produce spores that may remain dormant for decades. Humans canbecome infected because of exposure to the spores either through a cut in the skin or byinhalation. Infection by inhalation is usually used in bio-terrorism attacks, Doran said.

Inhaling the spores is more dangerous because it leads to systemic disease. Anthrax contractedthrough a cut is usually more curable, although a small percentage of these infections turn intosystemic disease, Doran said.

Systemic infection that occurs as a result of inhaling the spores has a mortality rate approaching100 percent, Doran said. Death usually occurs a few days after the onset of symptoms.

Experiment 1 Neutral Priming Article:

Cern's Large Hadron Collider powers up

By David Meyer

Shortly before 8.30am on Wednesday, scientists at Cern turned on the Large Hadron Collider for

the first time. Within one hour, a particle beam had been successfully circulated through the

machine.

The world's most powerful particle accelerator to date, the system is designed to recreate the

conditions that existed a millionth of a millionth of a second after the Big Bang, or the birth of

the universe. By smashing particles together at unprecedented in man-made terms

energies, the scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern) hope to answer

questions such as why some subatomic particles are heavier than others, and how particles were

formed in the first place.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is the world's largest machine, is housed in a 27km-

long circular tunnel located 100m under the Alps, straddling the Swiss-French border.

Wednesday saw the first attempt to circulate a particle beam around the entire ring, but no

attempt was be made to create collisions on this date. Rather, the work towards that goal with the

LHC and its detectors will now continue.

One specific particle that the scientists want to detect is the 'Higgs boson'. The confirmation of

the existence of this as-yet-unobserved particle would validate much of what is currently

believed to be true about physics.

The LHC is the world's largest cryogenic installation. In preparation for Wednesday's initiation,

37,000 tonnes of equipment had to be cooled down by 300C to 1.9 above absolute zero (-


25/43

271C). The machine also uses the world's most advanced superconducting magnet technologies.

LHC's conception and construction involved 10,000 people from 500 institutes in 50 countries.

Elements of the LHC system were successfully tested in August to ensure exact synchronisation.

Cern's first particle accelerator, the proton Synchro-Cyclotron, was built in 1957. The LHC, by

contrast, will be seven times more powerful than any existing particle accelerator today. Within

the next few years, Cern hopes to be colliding particles at 30 times the intensity of older particleaccelerators.

The UK's Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) has invested more than half a

billion pounds in the project. This includes the UK's subscription to Cern and the funding that

has gone into the UK institutes that were involved in the construction of the LHC's detectors. It

also includes the GridPP, the UK's contribution to the grid computing network established to

handle the vast amounts of data that will be generated by the project. Through GridPP, the UK is

providing 15 percent of the computing power in that network.

"We are trying to find out what everything is made of; what we are made of; the smallest piecesinside us; every atom," Peter Watkins, professor of the University of Birmingham's School of

Physics and Astronomy, said in a statement.

"We're also trying to understand how the universe started," Watkins continued. "We're trying to

understand what happened shortly after the Big Bang, and we need to look at these tiny particles

to understand that better. However, to achieve this, when we study things at the Large Hadron

Collider, we need equipment which challenges technology and industry to the limit. And we

push electronics and computers right to the leading edge of the subject."

Experiment 1 High Fear/Strong Argument Article:

USAMRIID Scientists Report that Major U.S. Cities Remain Soft Targets to Airborne

Anthrax Attack

By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI

Following the suicide of U.S. Army microbiologist Bruce E. Ivans on July 29 of this year, thechief suspect for the 2001 anthrax attacks, scientists from USAMRIID, the DOD, and the CDCare warning that major U.S. cities remain vulnerable to an airborne anthrax attack.

A report authored by senior research scientist Leonard Smith of USAMRIID notes that since the

2001 anthrax attacks the U.S. has remained lax in its efforts to prevent future biological attacksin the U.S. The reports also notes that large U.S. cities remain incredibly vulnerable to futureairborne biological attacks, especially biological agents like Anthrax which are easy to obtainand weaponize.

Anthrax, a bacterial disease, is most dangerous when inhaled, experts say. It has up to a 60 dayincubation period, but in general it only takes 2 to 3 days. Initial symptoms include a sore throat,mild fever, and muscle aches. Additional symptoms develop rapidly after the incubation period.


26/43

These symptoms include difficulty breathing, shock, and meningitis (swelling of the brain andspinal cord). Death usually occurs 24 to 36 hours after the second set of symptoms present.Death is caused by fluid rapidly filling the lungs, essentially drowning the victim.

The problem with airborne anthrax is that it is the most difficult form to treat and survival is

unlikely. An anthrax infection can be contagious which is what makes large cities a desirabletarget for terrorists, both domestic and foreign.

In response to the USAMRIID article the RAND Corporation, a government funded think tankspecializing in defense and national security policy, has suggested that the U.S. governmentrequire mandatory anthrax vaccinations for especially vulnerable populations including childrenand the elderly.

According to Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corporation, if one man [Bruce E. Ivans] cancultivate and weaponize the anthrax bacteria, it is reasonable to assume that a highly organized,well financed group like al-Qaeda can easily obtain and weaponize anthrax as well. He adds,

In light of the USAMRIID report, it seems likely that an attack is imminent on a major U.S. citylike New York or Philadelphia and that they will use weaponized anthrax. The bottom line is thatwe need to be prepared.

The RAND Corporation in their report notes that the U.S. military has already designed andtested an effective anthrax vaccination that is currently being used on soldiers in Iraq. Theanthrax vaccine has a 90% success rate in preventing the disease thereby cutting down thelethality of the weaponized bacteria. The current military issue anthrax vaccine also has few sideeffects, side effects similar to that of the flu vaccine currently administered to millions of olderadults and children across the U.S.

The cost of this form of terrorist prevention is also very cost effective. The vaccine would costthe government roughly 25 cents per person vaccinated which is much cheaper than increasingthe police in the ground and military patrols in the air. In short, the RAND Corporation arguesthat mandatory vaccinations are a strong defensive act that will save considerable lives whenanother terrorist attack occurs.

Experiment 1 High Fear/Weak Argument Article:

USAMRIID Scientists Report that Major U.S. Cities Remain Soft Targets to Airborne

Anthrax Attack


Following the suicide of U.S. Army microbiologist Bruce E. Ivans on July 29 of this year, thechief suspect for the 2001 anthrax attacks, scientists from USAMRIID, the DOD, and the CDCare warning that major U.S. cities remain vulnerable to an airborne anthrax attack.

A report authored by senior research scientist Leonard Smith of USAMRIID notes that since the2001 anthrax attacks the U.S. has remained lax in its efforts to prevent future biological attacksin the U.S. The reports also notes that large U.S. cities remain incredibly vulnerable to future


27/43

airborne biological attacks, especially biological agents like Anthrax which are easy to obtainand weaponize.

Anthrax, a bacterial disease, is most dangerous when inhaled, experts say. It has up to a 60 dayincubation period, but in general it only takes 2 to 3 days. Initial symptoms include a sore throat,

mild fever, and muscle aches. Additional symptoms develop rapidly after the incubation period.These symptoms include difficulty breathing, shock, and meningitis (swelling of the brain andspinal cord). Death usually occurs 24 to 36 hours after the second set of symptoms present.Death is caused by fluid rapidly filling the lungs, essentially drowning the victim.

The problem with airborne anthrax is that it is the most difficult form to treat and survival isunlikely. An anthrax infection can be contagious which is what makes large cities a desirabletarget for terrorists, both domestic and foreign.

In response to the USAMRIID article the RAND Corporation, a government funded think tankspecializing in defense and national security policy, has suggested that the U.S. government

require mandatory anthrax vaccinations for especially vulnerable populations including childrenand the elderly.

According to Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corporation, even though it takes a high techlaboratory with many highly skilled scientists to weaponize anthrax, it is reasonable to assumethat a loosely organized, moderately financed group, without a secure headquarters like al-Qaedacan easily obtain and weaponize anthrax as well. He adds, In light of the USAMRIID report, itseems likely that an attack is imminent on a major U.S. city like New York or Philadelphia andthat they will use weaponized anthrax. The bottom line is that we need to be prepared.

Other experts note that the U.S. military has already designed and tested a controversial andexperimental anthrax vaccination that was last used during the 1991 Gulf War. The anthraxvaccine has a 20% success rate in preventing the disease thereby slightly reducing the lethality ofthe weaponized bacteria. The current military issue anthrax vaccine also has significant sideeffects that occur at a higher than average rate including infertility, miscarriage, and in somecases death. There are additional reports that this experimental vaccine also may have causedGulf War Syndrome.

The cost of this form of terrorist prevention is also very cost effective. The vaccine would costthe government roughly 25 dollars per person vaccinated which is much more expensive thanhiring more police, installing new security cameras, and funding the costs of more regularmilitary patrols, however, the vaccine would ensure the most vulnerable are protected.

Experiment 1 Low Fear/Strong Argument Article:

USAMRIID Scientists Report that the Threat of another Anthrax Attack Remains Minimal


Following the suicide of U.S. Army microbiologist Bruce E. Ivans on July 29 of this year, thechief suspect for the 2001 anthrax attacks, scientists from USAMRIID, the DOD, and the CDC


28/43

have issued a report indicating that the likelihood of another anthrax attack like the 2001 mailthreat remain low.

A report authored by senior research scientist Leonard Smith of USAMRIID notes that since the2001 anthrax attacks the U.S. has increased its efforts to prevent future biological attacks in the

U.S. by securing biological facilities. The report notes that it is incredibly difficult for anyoneoutside of the military to obtain or weaponize biological organisms, especially anthrax.

Anthrax, a bacterial disease, is most dangerous when inhaled, however it is incredibly hard toweaponize anthrax so there is little threat of anyone inhaling the bacteria. Anthrax can betransmitted through open sores or ingested, but in these forms, anthrax is much less deadly andsignificantly easier to treat. The CDC reports that it is highly unlikely that anyone will come intocontact with airborne anthrax, and reports to the contrary are overstated.

USAMRIID also notes that, even on the off chance of a successful anthrax attack, the impact islikely to be localized and the threat to life minimal since anthrax is not contagious. One had to

come into direct contact with the spores to become infected.


According to Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corporation, if one man [Bruce E. Ivans] cancultivate and weaponize the anthrax bacteria, it is reasonable to assume that a highly organized,well financed group like al-Qaeda can easily obtain and weaponize anthrax as well. He adds,In light of the USAMRIID report, it seems likely that an attack is imminent on a major U.S. citylike New York or Philadelphia and that they will use weaponized anthrax. The bottom line is thatwe need to be prepared.

The RAND Corporation in their report notes that the U.S. military has already designed andtested an effective anthrax vaccination that is currently being used on soldiers in Iraq. Theanthrax vaccine has a 90% success rate in preventing the disease thereby cutting down thelethality of the weaponized bacteria. The current military issue anthrax vaccine also has few sideeffects, side effects similar to that of the flu vaccine currently administered to millions of olderadults and children across the U.S.

The cost of this form of terrorist prevention is also very cost effective. The vaccine would costthe government roughly 25 cents per person vaccinated which is much cheaper than increasingthe police in the ground and military patrols in the air. In short, the RAND Corporation arguesthat mandatory vaccinations are a strong defensive act that will save considerable lives whenanother terrorist attack occurs.

Experiment 1 Low Fear/Weak Argument Article:


29/43

USAMRIID Scientists Report that the Threat of another Anthrax Attack Remains Minimal


Following the suicide of U.S. Army microbiologist Bruce E. Ivans on July 29 of this year, thechief suspect for the 2001 anthrax attacks, scientists from USAMRIID, the DOD, and the CDC

have issued a report indicating that the likelihood of another anthrax attack like the 2001 mailthreat remain low.

A report authored by senior research scientist Leonard Smith of USAMRIID notes that since the2001 anthrax attacks the U.S. has increased its efforts to prevent future biological attacks in theU.S. by securing biological facilities. The report notes that it is incredibly difficult for anyoneoutside of the military to obtain or weaponize biological organisms, especially anthrax.

Anthrax, a bacterial disease, is most dangerous when inhaled, however it is incredibly hard toweaponize anthrax so there is little threat of anyone inhaling the bacteria. Anthrax can betransmitted through open sores or ingested, but in these forms, anthrax is much less deadly and

significantly easier to treat. The CDC reports that it is highly unlikely that anyone will come intocontact with airborne anthrax, and reports to the contrary are overstated.

USAMRIID also notes that, even on the off chance of a successful anthrax attack, the impact islikely to be localized and the threat to life minimal since anthrax is not contagious. One had tocome into direct contact with the spores to become infected.


According to Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corporation, even though it takes a high techlaboratory with many highly skilled scientists to weaponize anthrax, it is reasonable to assumethat a loosely organized, moderately financed group, without a secure headquarters like al-Qaedacan easily obtain and weaponize anthrax as well. He adds, In light of the USAMRIID report, itseems likely that an attack is imminent on a major U.S. city like New York or Philadelphia andthat they will use weaponized anthrax. The bottom line is that we need to be prepared.

Other experts note that the U.S. military has already designed and tested a controversial andexperimental anthrax vaccination that was last used during the 1991 Gulf War. The anthraxvaccine has a 20% success rate in preventing the disease thereby slightly reducing the lethality of

the weaponized bacteria. The current military issue anthrax vaccine also has significant sideeffects that occur at a higher than average rate including infertility, miscarriage, and in somecases death. There are additional reports that this experimental vaccine also may have causedGulf War Syndrome.

The cost of this form of terrorist prevention is also very cost effective. The vaccine would costthe government roughly 25 dollars per person vaccinated which is much more expensive thanhiring more police, installing new security cameras, and funding the costs of more regular


30/43

military patrols, however, the vaccine would ensure the most vulnerable are protected.

Experiment 2 Content Distracter Article:

Roughly 4 years ago New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina causing billions of

dollars in damage and forcing roughly half the population to evacuate the city. Today, NewOrleans is in the process of rebuilding, but it goes beyond rebuilding, political, business, andsocial leaders are making a huge effort to remake New Orleans into a new type of city thatpromises jobs, high class education, and new opportunities.

TheNew York Times reports that legions of non-profit workers have turned their attention toNew Orleans in an attempt to build innovative schools, smart urban planning and a housing stockbuilt to the highest environmental standards in order to make New Orleans a national role modelfor urban renewal.

Swaggering entrepreneurs, who have set up small branding firms, music licensors and green

energy companies in the downtown warehouses seem largely untroubled by the reluctance ofFortune 500 companies to bring their headquarters here. This is not a town for old-line corporatethinking. This is a town for pioneers, risk-takers, they say.

There is a great deal of hope for New Orleans, unemployment is at 7.4% which is below the

9.4% unemployment at the national level, tourism is returning to New Orleans allowing for a

steady stream of revenues, and the people are returning to New Orleans, as 75% of the pre-

Katrina population has returned to the city. While there is still considerable work left over, New

Orleans has made significant progress since Katrina.

Experiment 2 Fear Distracter Article:

ABC science reporter, Anna Salleh, writes that the danger from a new flu virus comes from itsability to slip past the bodys first line of defense and infect human cells completely unchecked.Furthermore, the lower the general immunity level in a population, the more likely people are toget the disease, and thus more people are susceptible to complications. Even when the death rateis not high, the total gross number of deaths from a virulent strain of the flu could be quite large.

Among the most dangerous scenarios is one in which a human flu combines with a bird flu insuch a way as to imbue the virus with the ability to achieve human-to-human transfer, but with agenetic and physical makeup that is unrecognizable by the human immune system. Between theporcine and avian immune systems, the avian is the most unlike human immune systems; so an

avian flu transmissible among humans could be particularly deadly. It was this scenario thatcaused governments all over the world to bulk up their pandemic response capacity.

When news of the swine flu broke, health officials feared the worst: that this was a completely

new strain, and not only was it spreading fast, but it (at the time) appeared to cause a high

number of deaths in Mexico although the information was spotty. This immediately led to

concerns that it could provoke the kind of widespread deaths seen in the 1918-1919 Spanish

flu. Indeed, the precedent of that pandemic has some very important lessons. In the first place,


31/43

I

the flu did not sweep the world immediately. It started as a mild influenza in Kansas, but later

evolved into its more virulent form when it traveled with U.S. military personnel to Europe

during World War I, and from there spread across the world. All told the Spanish flu infected

500 million people (1/3 of the world's population) and killed roughly 50 to 100 million persons.

Experiment 2 F-22 Program Weak Argument:

Saving the

F-22 Raptor

By Joseph D. Caldara

N deciding the fate of the F-22A Raptor, opponents of the stealth jet assembled in Mariettaarent waging war: Theyre waging obfuscation.

If readers based their opinions solely on the anonymous sources who have attempted tocrash the F-22s future theyd be forgiven for thinking the Raptor is the biggest failure since theSpruce Goose.

As usual, the truth tells a different story.Heres a fact: The F-22 will be one of Americas top fighter/bombers for the next four

decades, able to take down present and future air threats.We support the F-22 program and are fighting efforts in congress to remove $1.75 billion for

new planes from the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate because many people willlose their high-paying great benefit jobs that significantly benefit Georgia at the expense of therest of the country.

In the debate over funding more F-22s, some members of congress repeatedly said that the plane is unnecessary for fighting the types of wars America is presently waging in Iraq andAfghanistan. Think about North Korea, or about Iran, nations run by hostile regimes hellbent onobtaining nuclear weapons and buying the next generation of Russian-made surface-to-airmissiles.

For planes without the F-22s stealth technology and supersonic speeds, it will be extremelydifficult to penetrate such countries airspaces.

The Raptor is not the only Western aircraft that can stalk such targets day and night while alsopiercing enemy airspace.

______________

The F-22 will be America's top fighter bomber for the next four decades

________________

Heres another fact: Few other aircraft has this capability.This isnt theoretical. In exercises, the Raptor has show that it can be as good as other jets.In a recent Red Flag exercise in Alaska, the F-22 slew 40 out of 100 enemy planes with the

loss of only 3 of the 6 raptors participating in the exercise.With the F-22s advanced avionics, it can engage the enemy long before the enemy knows its

there.Detractors of the F-22 have been quick to highlight the jets reported technical and

maintenance problems. But these problems mean jobs and economic growth for Georgia where


32/43

I

the Raptor is maintained.The United States Air Force has confirmed reports about the problems with the aircraft but note

that with regular and costly maintenance they are safe to fly. They note that Georgia already hasan extensive infrastructure in place to support the maintenance program and ending the programwould put hundreds of Americans out of jobs.

T he Raptors detractors also persist in using false economics: that the F-22s hourly flightcosts are far more expensive than the F-15 it is replacing. No wonder. The brand-new F-22 costs$19,750 per hour to fly, instead of $17,465 for the F-15, a plane that is nearly 40 years old, andthat has none of the F-22s advanced stealth and speed capabilities.

Yes, the F-22 requires a large number of maintenance hours per flight hour.But most of those hours are spent on maintaining the Raptors aging skin technology that

gives it the ability to elude radar. Maintaining that stealth requires a great deal of exactitude andpainstaking attention. And the plane is more complicated than its predecessors, the F-117 and theB-2, and as a result, requires more work to maintain it.

While this may be costly for taxpayers in general, the burden is not significant for anyindividual taxpayer. And besides, as far as government pork barrel projects are concerned, this is

a relatively cheap venture that offers hundreds of Georgians quality, high-paying jobs withexcellent government benefits. In addition it keeps the local politicians in their offices so theycan offer their support for other military projects.

In addition, some U.S. allies have shown interest in purchasing this fighter which would offer

workers additional economic security. Moreover, the local politicians would be able to claim

additional credit for the program which would be good for their long term electoral prospects.

Joseph D. Caladara is a retired Major General in the United States Airforce and a media

consultant on military technology and preparedness for NBC.

Experiment 2 F-22 Program Strong Argument:

Saving the

F-22 Raptor

By Joseph D. Caldara

N deciding the fate of the F-22A Raptor, opponents of the stealth jet assembled in Mariettaarent waging war: Theyre waging obfuscation.

If readers based their opinions solely on the anonymous sources who have attempted tocrash the F-22s future theyd be forgiven for thinking the Raptor is the biggest failure since theSpruce Goose.

As usual, the truth tells a different story.Heres a fact: The F-22 will be Americas top fighter/bomber for the next four decades, able to

take down present and future air threats.We support the F-22 program and are fighting efforts in Congress to remove $1.75 billion for

new planes from the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate.


33/43

In the debate over funding some members of Congress have said repeatedly that the plane isunnecessary for fighting the types of wars America is presently waging in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But that fails to take into account the all-too-real threat posed by inexpensive integrated air-defense systems that not only exist but thatare mushrooming.

Think about North Korea, or about Iran, nations run by hostile regimes hellbent on obtainingnuclear weapons and buying the next generation of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles.For planes without the F-22s stealth technology and supersonic speeds, it will be extremely

difficult to penetrate such countries airspaces.The Raptor is the only Western aircraft that can stalk such targets day and night while also

piercing enemy airspace.______________

The F-22 will be America's top fighter bomber for the next four decades

________________

Heres another fact: No other aircraft has this capability.This isnt theoretical. In exercises, other aircraft have proven no match for the Raptor.In a recent Red Flag exercise in Alaska, the F-22 was better than all other fighter that

participated. It slew 99 of 100 of advanced enemy air craft with the loss of only a single Raptor.With the F-22s advanced avionics, it can engage the enemy long before the enemy knows its

there.Detractors of the F-22 have been quick to highlight the jets reported technical and

maintenance problems.To address those allegations, the Air Force has written a rebuttal fact sheet that is posted on

our Web sites.Regardless of whether its in the Air Forces best interest to garner more F-22s which

cynics will undoubtedly say the service certainly has an interest in owning planes that are safeto fly.

T he Raptors detractors also persist in using false economics: that the F-22s hourly flightcosts are far more expensive than the F-15 it is replacing. No wonder. The brand-new F-22 costs$19,750 per hour to fly, instead of $17,465 for the F-15, a plane that is nearly 40 years old, andthat has none of the F-22s advanced stealth and speed capabilities.

Yes, the F-22 requires a large number of maintenance hours per flight hour.But most of those are spent on the Raptors skin that gives it the ability to elude radar.

Maintaining that stealth requires a great deal of exactitude and painstaking attention. And theplane requires far less work to maintain than did its predecessors, the F-117 and the B-2.

It is a better buy for the taxpayer to maintain the F-22 than to buy replacement models ofnonstealth aircraft that have proven vulnerable precisely because they could not infiltrate enemyairspace.

And it is unquestionably better not to expose our pilots and troops to such dangers if we havethe technology to protect them as they perform their jobs.

If the Raptor is such a fiasco, as its critics would have you believe, then Americans shouldwonder why so many of our allies, including Israel, Japan and Australia, continue to expressinterest in buying it.


34/43

Perhaps these nations can see through the radar-jamming rhetoric to understand that the F-22

is an airborne deterrent in Americas arsenal, capable of protecting our fighting men and women

now and in the future.

Joseph D. Caladara is a retired Major General in the United States Airforce and a mediaconsultant on military technology and preparedness for NBC.


35/43

References

Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads

Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cacioppo, John T., and Richard E. Petty. 1982. The Need for Cognition. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1): 116-31.

Chaiken, Shelly, Akiva Liberman and Alice Eagly. 1989. Heuristic and Systematic Information

Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context. In James S. Uleman and John A.

Bargh, eds., Unintended Thought. New York: Guilford Press.

Das, Enny H.H.J., John B.F. De Wit and Wolfgang Stroebe. 2003. Fear Appeals Motivate

Acceptance of Action Recommendations: Evidence for a Positive Bias in the Processing

of Persuasive Messages.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 650-664.

Downs, Anthony. 1957.An Economic Theory of Democracy. Boston: Addison Wesley.

Lang, P.J., Bradley, M.M., and Cuthbert, B.N. 2008.International Affective Picture System

(IAPS): Affective Ratings of Pictures and Instruction Manuel. Technical Report A-8 .

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Leventhal, Howard. 1971. Fear Appeals and Persuasion: The Differentiation of a Motivational

Construst.American Journal of Public Health, 61(6):1208-1224.

Liberman, Akiva and Shelly Chaiken. 1992. Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant

Health Messages.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18: 669-679. =

Mackuen, Michael, Geroge E. Marcus, W. Russell Neuman and Luke Keele. 2007. The Third

Way: The Theory of Affective Intelligence and American Democracy. In W. Russell

Neuman, George E. Marcus, Ann N. Crigler and Michael Mackuen, eds., The Affect

Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. Chicago and London:


36/43

The University of Chicago Press.

Marcus, George E. 1988. The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates.

The American Political Science Review, 82(3): 737-761.

Marcus, George E. 2002. The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. University

Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Marcus, George E. 2003. The Psychology of Emotions and Politics. In David O. Sears, Leonie

Huddy and Robert Jarvis, eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Marcus, George E. and Michael B. Mackuen. 1993. Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The

Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns.

The American Political Science Review, 87(3): 672-685.

Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen. 2000.Affective Intelligence and

Political Judgment. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of

Persausion.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 124-206.

Rahn, Wendy M. 2000. Affect as Information: The Role of Public Mood in Political

Reasoning. In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin, eds.,

Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Redlawsk, David P., Andrew J.W. Civettini and Richard R. Lau. 2007. Affective Intelligence

and Voting: Information Processing and Learning in a Campaign. In W. Russell

Neuman, George E. Marcus, Ann N. Crigler and Michael Mackuen, eds., The Affect

Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. Chicago and London:


37/43

The University of Chicago Press.

Ruiter, Robert A.C., Charles Abraham and Gerjo Kok. 2001. Scary Warnings and Rational

Precautions: A Review of the Psychology of Fear Appeals.Psychology and Health,

16(6): 613-630.

Shehryar, Omar and David M. Hunt. A Terror Management Perspective on the Persuasiveness

of Fear Appeals.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4): 275-287.

Tanner, John F. Jr., James B. Hunt, and David R. Eppright. 1991. The Protection Motivation

Model: A Normative Model of Fear Appeals. The Journal of Marketing, 55(3): 36-45.

Watson, David, and Lee Anna Clark. 1994. The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive-Negative

Affect Schedule. Typescript. The University of Iowa.

Witte, Kim. 1992. Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals: The Extended Parallel Process

Model. Communication Monographs, 59: 329-349.

Witte, Kim and Mike Allen. 2000. A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for

Effective Public Health Campaigns.Health Education and Behavior, 27: 591-615.

Zaller, John. 2004. Floating Voters in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948-2000. In Willem E.

Saris and Paul M. Sniderman, eds., Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes,

Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


38/43

Table 1: The Effects of Fear Appeals and Argument Strength on Attitudes toward

Mandatory Vaccinations, Study 1

Low Need for Cognition High Need for Cognition

Strong Argument -0.250 1.509

(0.671) (0.713)High Fear 0.603 1.173(0.655) (0.731)

Strong x High Fear 0.447 -1.182(0.923) (1.048)

Constant 4.440 2.250(0.454) (0.527)

N 98 99Adjusted R

20.01 0.03

Notes: Model parameters estimated using OLS. Standard errors in parentheses.


39/43

Table 2: The Effects of Induced Anxiety and Argument Strength on Attitudes toward the

F-22 Program, Study 2

Low Need for

Cognition

High Need for

Cognition

Conservatives vs.

Non-Conservatives

Strong Argument 0.468 1.744 1.258(0.518) (0.507) (0.410)High Fear -0.156 0.157 0.326

(0.531) (0.523) (0.416)Strong x High Fear 0.229 -1.750 -1.111

(0.722) (0.753) (0.578)Conservative 0.576

(0.656)Strong x Conservative -0.531

(0.897)High Fear x Conservative -1.470

(0.943)Strong x High Fear x C

Documents

SSRN-Id1644637-1_does Fear Motivate Critical Evaluation of Political Arguments