Reasoning strategies modulate gender differences in emotion processing.

TitleReasoning strategies modulate gender differences in emotion processing.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2018
AuteursMarkovits, H, Trémolière, B, Blanchette, I
JournalCognition
Volume170
Pagination76-82
Date Published2018 01
ISSN1873-7838
KeywordsAdult, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Characteristics, Social Perception, Thinking
Abstract

The dual strategy model of reasoning has proposed that people's reasoning can be understood asa combination of two different ways of processing information related to problem premises: a counterexample strategy that examines information for explicit potential counterexamples and a statistical strategy that uses associative access to generate a likelihood estimate of putative conclusions. Previous studies have examined this model in the context of basic conditional reasoning tasks. However, the information processing distinction that underlies the dual strategy model can be seen asa basic description of differences in reasoning (similar to that described by many general dual process models of reasoning). In two studies, we examine how these differences in reasoning strategy may relate to processing very different information, specifically we focus on previously observed gender differences in processing negative emotions. Study 1 examined the intensity of emotional reactions to a film clip inducing primarily negative emotions. Study 2 examined the speed at which participants determine the emotional valence of sequences of negative images. In both studies, no gender differences were observed among participants using a counterexample strategy. Among participants using a statistical strategy, females produce significantly stronger emotional reactions than males (in Study 1) and were faster to recognize the valence of negative images than were males (in Study 2). Results show that the processing distinction underlying the dual strategy model of reasoning generalizes to the processing of emotions.

DOI10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.012
Alternate JournalCognition
PubMed ID28950178