University of South Carolina Protocol

Study Title: Study on Emotion, Rationality and Political Decision Making

Principal Investigator Name: Dylan Jancse

Faculty Mentor Name (if applicable): Dr. Krissy Lunz-Trujillo

A. SPECIFIC AIMS

The goal of this study is to attempt to use a rationality inducing treatment to reduce incidental
emotions within the sample. The secondary goal of this study is to examine if there is change
within policy positions due to incidental emotions.

B. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Emotion plays a central role in decision making, both directly and indirectly (Rekar et al.,
2023). As emotions help direct the body to take action in different situations (Gadrian & Brader,
2023), it can have positive and negative effects on decisions. Emotions can have a positive
effect on political decision making, such as encouraging local government participation when
balanced with objectivity and rationality (Schiffbeck, 2021). However, emotions may create a
negative impact on political decision making. Emotions such as anxiety can influence the
gathering and interpretation of information so that negative aspects are more prominent
(Gadrian & Albertson, 2014). Even when anxiety is incidental to the judgement, it can indirectly
influence the judgement on policies such as immigration (Renshon et al., 2015), These
potential influences of emotion can create issues when bias may be detrimental to decision
making.
This study attempts to reduce the influence of emotion while making policy judgment to
prevent unintended bias.
If the study’s goals are achieved, the findings would suggest that incidental emotions can be
reduced before making important decisions. The treatment could be applied in order to reduce
bias and create a rational outcome before a decision is made.

C. PRELIMINARY STUDIES

No preliminary studies were conducted for this project.

D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Location: The study and data collection will be conducted online.

The survey will be conducted using Qualtrics software. The survey includes questions from a
variety of published studies that analyzed political decisions. This survey will use:

3 questions from the cognitive reflection task

6 demographic questions using the Brief Mood Introspective Scale
2 questions from the Collaborate Multiracial Post-Election Survey (2020)
2 questions from the Issue Specific Opinion Toward Illegal Immigration Index
2 questions from the Welfare Policies Questionnaire
1
 University of South Carolina Protocol
2 questions on the Gun Control Attitudes Scale

The study will randomly separate participants into two groups: a control group and a treatment
group. The control group will include all questions sans the cognitive reflection task. The
treatment group will be prompted to answer all questions including the cognitive reflection task.
After the data is collected, the answers of the treatment group and the answers of the control
group will be compared to analyze whether the treatment had an affect on both mood and
policy positions. Results will be statistically analyzed using statistical tests such as t-tests,
ANOVAs, and regressions.
Limitations:
As a survey will be utilized for this study, the internal validity is weaker than a controlled
experiment.

E. PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

1. TARGET POPULATION:

The convenience sample will be University of South Carolina college students The anticipated
sample size will be up to 140 students. If a larger sample size is needed, I will ask other
professors to distribute the survey to other undergraduate students.

2. RECRUITMENT PLANS:

Potential participants will be recruited from a political science class run by Dr. Krissy Lunz-
Trujillo (POLI 201: American National Government). The survey will be announced as an extra
credit opportunity of up to three points on the course site where they will be able to access the
link to the survey.

3. EXISTING DATA/SAMPLES:

No existing data will be used for this study.

4. CONSENT/ASSENT:

This study will gain consent from participants through the agreement to a consent form before
participating in this survey. As the survey is an optional extra credit opportunity, students can
refuse to participate if they feel uncomfortable.

5. POTENTIAL RISKS:
Describe any possible risks that participants may incur by participating in the study,the likelihood of the
risk occurring, and any procedures that will be taken to minimize those risks. Describe procedures to
treat or refer the subject for treatment (including who will be responsible for payment for any costs
incurred), and for notifying the IRB should an adverse event occur.

There are no physical risks to participants. As participants are answering survey questions,
there is little mental risk to participants. Potentially, participants might become mildly stressed
when answering political questions due to the stressful nature of politics in general. If the

2
 University of South Carolina Protocol
participant feels uncomfortable with answering any of the questions, they will be permitted to
skip uncomfortable questions or terminate the survey.

6. POTENTIAL BENEFITS:

There are no direct benefits to the participants other than receiving extra course credit.
However, the study will allow researchers to gain insight into the influence of emotions on
decision making and how the manipulation of these emotions affects policy positions.

7. CONFIDENTIALITY

The data will be collected through the use of Qualtrics survey software. We will not collect any
identifying information in the survey. Data for participants who ended participation prematurely
will be deleted. The data will remain confidential and will not be shared with any outside
parties. The only individuals who will have access to the raw data will be the primary
investigators. The raw data will only be stored on password protected computers.

8. COMPENSATION:

Participants will be compensated with extra credit for POLI 201: American National
Government. The study will be optional; it is not required to complete the course.

9. WITHDRAWAL:

Participants will be allowed to exit the survey software after starting. The data of participants
who terminate the study prematurely will be discarded. Participants who prematurely terminate
the survey will not receive extra course credit. Participants will be informed of their ability to
quit the study anytime.

F. REFERENCES/LITERATURE CITATIONS

Gadarian, S. K., & Albertson, B. (2014). Anxiety, immigration, and the search for information.

Political Psychology, 35(2), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12034

Gadarian S. K. & Brader, T. (2023). Emotion and political psychology. Huddy L. (ed.), The

Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, (3rd ed., pp. 191 – 22),

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197541302.001.0001

Rekar, P., Pahor, M., & Perat, M. (2023). Effect of emotion regulation difficulties on financial

decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 16(2), 80–93.

https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000172

Renshon, J., Lee, J. J., & Tingley, D. (2015). Physiological Arousal and Political Beliefs.

3
 University of South Carolina Protocol
Political Psychology, 36(5), 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12173

Schiffbeck, A. (2021). The Role of Emotional Religious Discourses in Deliberative Decision-

Making at Local Governance Level. Europolity: Continuity & Change in European

Governance, 15(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.25019/europolity.2021.15.2.8

G. APPENDIX

Link to CMP survey website: https://cmpsurvey.org/

Additional sources for survey questions:

Beyer, A., & Matthes, J. (2015). Issue-Specific Opinion Toward Illegal Immigration Index.

PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1037/t42083-000

Bullock, H. E., Williams, W. R., & Limbert, W. M. (2003). Welfare Policies Questionnaire.

PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1037/t64979-000

Fredrick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42

Stark, E., & Sachau, D. (2016). Gun Control Attitudes Scale. PsycTESTS.

https://doi.org/10.1037/t58488-000