Knowing when to trust your gut: The perceived trustworthiness of fear varies with domain expertise
Previous research suggests that people with specific fears may use their subjective experience of anxiety to infer the presence of danger – a process known as ex-consequentia reasoning. While existing research validates the presence of ex-consequentia reasoning among fearful individuals, there are contextual factors that may moderate such emotional inferences. One would expect that even fearful people can acknowledge a difference in the trustworthiness of the intuitive thoughts and feelings of a fearful person relative to an expert in a fear-relevant situation. We investigated whether the expertise of characters described in vignettes about fear of heights and spiders modulated the extent to which fearful and non-fearful participants believed it was appropriate for the character to infer the presence of danger from their emotional reactions. Bayesian ordinal regression and a multiverse analytic approach were used to ensure inferences were not sensitive to particular analytic choices. Consistent with our expectations, fearful and non-fearful participants were more likely to agree that an expert character should listen to their intuitive thoughts and feelings about a situation than a fearful character. Tentatively, we suggest that people’s metacognitive awareness about the relative validity of fear-related thoughts and feelings might be leveraged to help reduce ex-consequentia reasoning.