There is still a lot we do not know about how intuitive cognitions arise and the extent to which they can change over time.

The evidence from studies in cognitive science seems to indicate that intuitive cognitions can change over time, but they are highly resistant to change, and the factors leading to change are not clearly identified. It seems that, over time, individuals who have developed very specialized knowledge can actively suppress their initial gut feelings.

There also seems to be evidence for an internal cognitive “reward” system when operating on intuitive cognitions that lead to positive outcomes within the context of affinity groups. So, if a person is among people they highly respect or whose views are highly valued, intuitive cognitions will tend to conform to views or outcomes that are affirmed by that affinity group.

David Haury is a professor of science education at The Ohio State University.

The way we feel toward social issues and various groups depends upon a variety of factors, only one of which is the context in which we’re asked about those attitudes. The data we collected demonstrated that participants from dozens of countries with various religious and political backgrounds expressed more politically conservative attitudes and more negative attitudes toward non-Christian groups when they were asked near a church than when they were asked near a civic building. The difference between contexts was small, but significant.

Environmental cues are likely to have the most influence in situations where attitudes are ambiguous or are being newly formed. For example, most people enter a polling place with a firm decision for whom they wish to cast their vote for president. Many ballots, however, ask citizens to vote on a variety of issues at once, many of which they may be unfamiliar with, or may have weak attitudes about. The context in which those votes are cast is most likely to have an influence on these types of issues.

Jordan LaBouff is a CLAS-Honors Preceptor of Psychology at the University of Maine.

In a word, no. The difficulty people have predicting how they will behave in embarrassing situations is that people simply don’t mentally represent the power of emotions to shape their behavior. This applies both to the past and the future.

For the past, our difficulty empathizing with the power of embarrassment contributes to regret because we don’t understand, retrospectively, why we “chickened out.” For the future, our difficulty empathizing with the power of embarrassment causes us to enter into situations we’d rather not (e.g., agreeing to sing karaoke and then dreading the event) and causes us to change our minds (chicken out) at the last minute—setting us up for future regret when we can no longer understand why we failed to act.

Leaf Van Boven is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and director of the Emotion, Judgment, Decision, and Intuition lab at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Our study is really about two things.

First, gossip gets a bad rap. Much of what we call gossip is driven by a sincere desire to help others. We find, in a series of experiments, that the more generous and moral among us are most likely to pass on rumors about untrustworthy people, and they report doing so because they are concerned about the well-being others. In addition, we find that a category of rumor that we call “prosocial gossip” has positive effects for groups. When people pass on information about others who are selfish and untrustworthy, it warns others to avoid these people. As a result, overall rates of exploitation can be controlled in the group.

Taken together, we find that much gossip has both positive effects and moral motivations. So that’s the first thing—the idea that gossip can be quite virtuous.

Second, we found that gossip alleviates the negative emotions that we feel when we find that someone has behaved in an antisocial way. In our experiments, we find that people tend to experience frustration and show an increased heart rate when they find out that someone has behaved in a deviant way. But engaging in gossip, warning another about this person, can temper their frustration and elevated heart rate. So in this way, gossiping can make you feel better; you might even say it’s therapeutic.

Whether people should gossip more in light of this research depends on what kind of gossip it is. Obviously, rumors that are inaccurate, degrading, or maliciously motivated are socially harmful. However, gossip that is based on reliable information that serves to warn people about who can and cannot be trusted is good. It serves to promote cooperation and maintain social order.

Robb Willer is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.