Accuracy and Response Time for Modus Ponens Syllogisms Vary by Controversial Topic and Categorical Emotion

Abstract

Researchers have documented differential effects of emotion on cognitive processes, debating whether emotion may increase or decrease the response time and accuracy of logical thinking. The current study proposed that differences may be due to variability occurring across topic and categorical emotions, such that assessment of several basic emotional responses in the context of performing logical reasoning tasks may provide an initial indication of these differences. Utilizing modus ponens syllogisms composed of controversial statements, the current study evoked a variety of emotional responses and tested the accuracy of participants’ basic logical thinking. Results indicated that logical skills were largely preserved despite the topic and emotion, nonetheless, accuracy varied across syllogism type (controversial vs. control), with increased accuracy on controversial syllogisms. Syllogisms rated as evoking no emotion were answered more accurately than those that evoked any emotion, with disgust and anger associated with less accuracy than no emotion and gladness associated with increased accuracy. Response times also differed across syllogism type, emotion, and emotion intensity.