How do people's emotional reactions to Hurricane Katrina influence their evaluation of public policies and governmental bodies such as FEMA, the Presidential Administration, Congress, and local/state governments? How do people's emotional reactions influence their stereotype usage and attitudes toward racial issues regarding Hurricane Katrina? This project will seek answers to questions such as these by building on research indicating that because emotions such as anger are associated with appraisals of certainty whereas emotions such as fear and sadness are associated with appraisals of uncertainty, individuals who experience anger are less likely than those who experience fear or sadness to engage in critical thinking, and are more likely to exhibit stereotypic behavior. The proposal will test three hypotheses: first, individuals in emotional states associated with certainty will exhibit more stereotype usage compared with individuals in emotional states associated with uncertainty; second, individuals in emotional states associated with certainty will exhibit more politically polarized attitudes and policy evaluations compared with individuals in emotional states associated with uncertainty; and, third, that these influences of specific emotions will be accentuated by individuals' physical and social proximity to Hurricane Katrina. The proposal will advance basic scientific knowledge in social psychology, law, and judgment and decision making regarding the interplay between specific emotions, stereotypic behavior, public policy evaluation, and political polarization. Understanding these processes will allow citizens and lawmakers to have more informed discussions and to craft more deliberate laws and policies about these very important issues.
