Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The authors examined reasoning following the terrorist attacks carried out in London in July 2005. They tested participants in London (United Kingdom), Manchester (United Kingdom), and London (Canada) within 1 week of the attacks and again 6 months later. Participants reasoned about syllogisms of 3 types: neutral, generally emotional, and emotionally related to terrorism. Participants also provided self-reports of emotion and risk estimates. Participants generally reasoned more accurately on neutral problems, compared with generally emotional and terrorism-related problems. However, participants in London (United Kingdom) provided more logically valid answers when reasoning about problems related to terrorism and were less likely to answer on the basis of beliefs, despite reporting higher levels of emotions.
Blanchette et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: