Would've, could've, should've – The role of cognitive and affective appraisal in the judgment of human vs. nature caused disasters

Previous research showed that disasters caused by humans are considered as worse than natural events resulting in the same outcome. We tested if this effect is due to differences in both cognitive and affective appraisal of these events. An online study was conducted in which participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (human vs. nature cause condition). In both conditions, participants read two different short scenarios about disasters either caused by humans (human cause condition n = 274) or nature (nature cause condition n = 257) and responded to several questions (e.g., about the triggered affect, perceived severity of the situation). Although the outcomes were identical, the human caused disasters were judged as more severe than the nature caused disasters. Moreover, the human vs. nature caused disasters led to more negative affect and simultaneously triggered a more negative cognitive appraisal (e.g., including perceived avoidability). Testing for indirect effects, we found that both cognitive and affective appraisal turned out to be the two most crucial determinants of the differences in the severity judgments of the disasters. We discuss the why negative affect plays a meaningful role above and beyond the cognitive assessment and we consider our findings in terms of other judgmental biases. • People judge disasters as more severe when caused by humans vs. nature. • Human caused disasters lead to more negative affect than natural disasters. • Human vs. nature caused disasters trigger more negative cognitive appraisal. • Human vs. nature caused disasters are rated as worse due to both affective & cognitive appraisal.