Explaining Negativity Dominance without Processing Bias. Christian Unkelbach, Alex Koch, Hans Alves. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, April 16 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.04.005
Abstract: In a recent study, Shin and Niv explain both negativity and positivity biases in social evaluations as a function of the diversity and low frequency of events. We discuss why negative information is indeed more diverse and less frequent, and highlight the implications beyond social evaluations.
Keywords: valence asymmetriespositivity biasnegativity biasessocial evaluationscognitive-ecological models
Check also Why Good Is More Alike Than Bad: Processing Implications. Hans Alves, AlexKoch and Christian Unkelbach. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2017. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. tics. 2016. 12. 006
Why PositiveInformationIsMoreAlikeThanNegativeInformation
the questionremains ‘why’ this asymmetry exists and whe there it is a feature of the cognitive
system or afeature of the ecology (see OutstandingQuestions). the first positionfollowsfrom
the affective or motivationalpotential of evaluativei nformation (Box 1). Accordingly, confrontation with a negative stimulus elicitsnegativeaffect, whichtriggersdeeperprocessing, resultingina more differentiated mental representation. However, wearguethatpositiveinformation'shigher similarity isatrueproperty of the information ecology, independent of affectiveandmotivational influences. Our idea follows the tradition of researchers like Brunswik [13], Lewin [14], and Garner [40], whoemphasized the importance of the informationecology for psychological
processes.
Our explanationforpositiveinformation's higher similarity builds on the well-documented
assumption thatvalenceisafunction of attribute extremity. Aristotle [41] already recognized
that desirablequalitiesaremodestqualitiesthat are framed by both the excess and defect. That is, a
positive rangeislocatedtoward the middle of agivenattributedimensionandissurroundedby
two negativerangestoward the twoends of the dimension. the reby, positivityisnon-extreme.
This isapparentat the mostbasiclevel: Humanlifeispossibleonlywithinasinglerange of
temperature, oxygenconcentration, solarradiation, andsoon. Formostphysicalandchemical
dimensions thatarerelevanttohumanlife the reisa ‘too little’ and a ‘too much’. While humans
can survivewithina ‘good’ temperature range, the ycanbothfreezeandburn. the same
principle appliestointernalbiologicalstatesasprominentlyexpressedin the concept of
homeostasis [42, 43]. Asdiscussedearlier, the perceptualsystemfollows the sameprinciple,
as the desirablerange of prototypicalityissurroundedbyvariousdeviationsfrom the same.
Importantly, the range principle is also ubiquitous in psychological domains. GrantandSchwartz
[44] showed thatfor virtuallyalldimensions of humanattributes, the positiveordesirablerangeis
non-extreme. Even on attribute dimensions that seemingly have one positive and onenegative
pole, the positive range reaches inflection points at which its effects turn negative. Agreeable-
ness turns into conformity, conscientiousness into perfectionism, and courage into recklessness. Consequently, desirable personality profiles are thosethat are non-extreme, which is why
the correlationbetweenitemmeans of personalitytestsanditemdesirabilitytypicallyexceeds
r = 0. 80 [45]. Recentresearchhasshownthat the rangeprinciplealsounderlies the mental
representation of socialgroups [46, 47]. Thatis, likeablesocialgroupsarethosethatarenon-
extreme regarding their agency and their beliefs, while non-likeable groups are those that are
extreme on these dimensions.
Of course, somequalitiesmightbelinearlyrelatedtovalence. For instance, the amount of poison
in one'sblood, or the amount of traumatic experiences one has had. However, those are
exceptions to the rule that attribute dimensions typically host one (non-extreme) range and two
(extreme) negativeranges, constituting an inverted u-shaped relation between attribute value
and valence. Further more, the reverse pattern seems evenmoreunlikely andmaybe even never
occurs; that is, attribute dimensionsthat host one(non-extreme)negativerangeandtwo
(extreme) positive ranges (but see Outstanding Questions).
Assuming that attribute dimensions typically host one positive range framed by two negative
ranges, it follows that positive information must be on average morealikethannegative
information. the possible maximum distance between the two negativeranges on a given
attribute dimension always exceeds the distance within the positiverange. While twopositive
stimuli necessarily have to lay within the same range, two negative stimuli can lay in two different
ranges on a given attribute dimensionthat are highly distant and therefore differentfrom each
other. For example, while two attractive men must display a height that lays within the same
desirable range, two unattractive men can either be too short or too tall, and thereby highly
different.
Figure 1 (Key Figure) illustrates the rangeprincipleinatwo-dimensional attribute space in which
proximity equals similarityin accordance with a geometric model of similarity [9]. the single
positive space emerges in the center (white square), surrounded byfourdistinctnegativespaces
(dark graysquares) andfourambivalentspaces(lightgraysquares). If one would randomly
sample pairs of positive and negative stimuliandlocate the min the attributespace, the positive
stimuli willbeonaveragelocatedclosertoge the rthan the negativestimuli.
Preponderance of NegativeConcepts
Beyond explaining the similarityasymmetry, the rangeprincipleimpliesalargernumber of
negative states, evenonasingleattributedimension(cf. Figure 1). Evidenceforthisimplication
comes from research showing that language includes more negative than positive concepts. For example, the majority of wordsthatcanbeusedtodescribeapersonarenegative, which has
been shown for the English and Germanlanguages [48–50]. the sameistrueforemotion-
related wordsingeneral, as the ‘working emotionvocabulary’ in EnglishandSpanishwasfound
to includemorenegative(50%)thanpositive(30%)words [51, 52]. Ananalysis of English ‘verbs’
also revealedapreponderance of negativeoverpositivewords [53]. Itisuncleartowhatextent
the preponderance of negativewordsappliestolanguagesingeneralaswearenotaware of
research investigating the number of positiveandnegativewordsinlanguageso the rthan
English, Spanish, andGerman.
the impliedlargernumber of negativestatesisals of oundinhumans’ emotional response
repertoire. While differentresearchershaveproposeddifferent ‘basic emotions’, almostall
describe moredistinctnegativethanpositiveemotions [54]. Forexample, earlyconceptualiza-
tions byWilliamJames [55] included fear, grief, rage, andlove. Later, EkmanandFriesen [56, 57]
prominently identified anger, disgust, fear, sadness, andjoyasbasicemotions, andPanksepp
[58] described the psychobiologicalsystems of fear, rage, andpanicandanappetitiveexpec-
tancy system. Howpreponderance of negativeemotionsfollowsfrom the rangeprinciplecanbe
illustrated usingappraisal the ories of emotions [59]. Accordingly, positiveemotionsresultfrom
goal-congruent appraisals, while negativeemotionsresultfromappraisals of goalincongruence
[60]. Again, while goalcongruenceconstitutesasinglecondition, the rearemanydifferentways
for conditionstobegoalincongruent. Fromthisperspective, the manifoldness of the negative
emotional repertoiremirrors the greatdiversity of goal-incongruentconditions.
In sum, the differentialsimilarity of positiveinformationandnegativeinformationmayfollowfrom
the proposedrangeprinciple. We believe this explanation is plausible and parsimonious, without
denying that the re might be o the r factorscontributingtothisasymmetryinsimilarity(see
Outstanding Questions). Besidesbeinganintriguingphenomenonbyitself,positiveinforma-
tion's highsimilaritymayserveasanexplanatoryconstructfordifferencesin the processing of
positive andnegativeinformation, whichweaddressin the following.
No comments:
Post a Comment