@conference {bib_82,
	title = {Cognition and Emotion in Narratives of Redemption: An Automated Analysis},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {2382-2387},
	publisher = {Cognitive Science Society},
	organization = {Cognitive Science Society},
	address = {Austin, TX},
	abstract = {Redemptive narratives are stories of challenge, failure, or adversity that in some way acknowledge the goodness or personal growth that came of the recounted difficult event. In this paper we use a corpus-statistic based approach to explore the role of cognition and emotion in these narrative arcs. In particular, we trace the shift from negative to positive sentiment (a change in the emotional valence) and vice to virtue (evidence of cognitive, moral processing) within the narrative. Our results suggest that cognitive processes, more than emotion, drive the shift to goodness and growth that is at the core of redemptive narratives. We discuss the implications of these results to both narrative psychology and cognitive psychology.},
	author = {Sagi, Eyal and Jones, Brady K.},
	editor = {Rogers, T. T. and Rau, M. and Zhu, X. and Kalish, C. W.}
}
@conference {bib_73,
	title = {Is it fair? Textual effects on the salience of moral foundations},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {3028-3032},
	abstract = {Many of the important decisions we make have moral implications. Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt \& Joseph, 2004) identifies 5 distinct styles of moral reasoning that may be applied to such decisions. This paper explores how reading text that emphasizes one of these styles might affect our reasoning. After participants read a series of tweets that emphasized the Fairness/Cheating foundation they exhibited an increased reliance on this style compared to when they read tweets emphasizing the Care/Harm foundation. This affected participants{\textquoteright} answers to a questionnaire designed to measure the perceived importance of the different foundations, as well as in their rating of the foundations evident in other tweets. Interestingly, this effect was short lived and was not observed for the Care/Harm foundation. These results suggest that exposure to the moral reasoning of others might temporarily influence what moral arguments we are likely to accept and employ.},
	author = {Eyal Sagi},
	editor = {Gunzelmann, G. and Howes, A. and Tenbrink, T. and Davelaar, E. J.}
}
