One of the major networks reminded

me once more, just recently, how much of our money is spent on research

that defies description. It has always amazed me that conclusions could

be reached about the human race by investigating, questioning or "following"

as few as ten individuals.

As I recall news releases that

have crossed my desk over the past decade or so, the numbers are usually

more than a hundred but considerably less than a thousand. However, a

"conclusive study" of 15 or 20 is not unheard of.

While scanning a number of

news releases this morning, concerning recent research programs, I found

news of an unusual national experiment on American emotions conducted

deeply influenced in opposite ways by anger and fear and enormously impacted

The scientists, all experts

in studying the way people think and behave, were able to quickly pull

together an experiment that studied the emotions and perceptions of the

risks of terrorism of nearly 1,000 American women, men and teens following

the terrorist attacks on America.

I understand the experiment

results may have implications for better understanding of consumer behavior,

the role of the media, and public support for the war on terrorism. According

to one of the researcher, the emotional responses of Americans "clearly

influence everything from future support for military action to decisions

to travel." (Really, now?)

It seems the Carnegie Mellon

team drew four major conclusions from its study:

1) Americans who experience

anger are more optimistic about the future, less likely to take precautionary

actions, and more likely to favor aggressive policy responses than those

who experience fear. (Yeah?)

2) Individuals see themselves

as less vulnerable than the "average American," while still

perceiving strikingly high personal risk in the wake of September 11.

(Does this tell me something?)

3) Men experience more anger

about terrorism than women, leading them to be more optimistic than women.

(Remember, a sampling of less than 1,000 individuals led to this conclusion.)

4) Media portrayals of the

terrorist attacks strongly influence emotional responses, producing anger

in some instances and fear in others. (Surprised?)

I don't know whose money was

spent by the Carnegie Mellon researchers, but look for a few tax dollars

to go in this research direction soon since, scientifically, the experiment

plows new ground. Scientists say that this is the first time that the

effects of emotion have been studied in a national sample, using the random

assignment to conditions of fear or anger. The experiment also underscored

the profound impact that media coverage has on the American public. (Imagine

that!)

Because emotions often affect

economic decisions and the formation of policies, research team members

stressed the importance of undertaking further studies like this one.

(See what I mean?)

"Citizens need to understand

these processes in order to apply their hearts and minds to what might

be a protracted struggle with the risks of terror," said Carnegie

Mellon University Professor of Social and Decision Sciences Baruch Fischhoff,

a member of the scientific team.

Such conclusions were reached

after this national field experiment with almost 1,000 American citizens,

ages 13 to 88. Using WebTVs supplied by the research corporation Knowledge

Networks, the project initially asked respondents about their reactions

only nine days after the attacks. Eight weeks later, using TV imagery

and newspaper reports from major media organizations broadcast on the

Web TVs, the researchers surveyed the same people again. For this second

survey, half of the sample was exposed to a fear-inducing media clip,

while the other half was exposed to an anger-inducing clip.

Carnegie Mellon researchers

found that Americans randomly assigned to the "fear condition"

perceived greater risks from terrorism, while those in the "anger

condition" perceived less risk. Brief reminders of media stories

elicited emotions that shaped Americans' perceptions of their own level

of risk. Stories that induced fear increased their perception that they

would be hurt in a terrorist attack, while stories that induced anger

reduced their perception of personal risk.

Fear and anger not only produced

different risk perceptions, but also different precautionary responses

and different policy preferences. The scientific team contends that these

findings have important implications for the health of the U.S. economy

and public support for the war against terrorism.

(Tell me, do you think such

research takes place in order to better understand the human mind, or

to be better able to manipulate it? Or maybe there is just a lot of money

out there that folks are looking for unique ways to spend?)

Back

to News Home Page |