Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluation, cognition and behavior
Lecture 4
The best life possible
The worst life possible
My life now
My life 5 years ago
My life in 10 years
Positive-negative asymmetry - definition
• PNA: Any asymmetry in cognitive representation of, or reaction to, positive as compared to negative stimuli which is not due to trivial differences in valence or intensity of these stimuli.
BIAS vs. EFFECT
• BIAS– Hypothesis a priori (assumption)
– Stimulus-independent
– „default option” of the „brain software”
– Subject-produced
• EFFECT– Reaction to the stimulus or information (a posteriori)
– Triggered by the object
Bias in evaluations
• Positive (positivity bias)– Positive assumptions on world and life
• Negative (negativity bias)– Negative assumptions on world and life
--
+ ++
+
+
+
+
++
+
-
-
-
--
-
-
Negative figures
Positive background
POSITIVITY BIAS
Positive figures
Negative background
NEGATIVITY BIAS
After: Peeters, 1971
Effects in evaluations
• Positive (positivity effect)– Stronger reaction to positive than negative
stimuli/information
• Negative (negativity effect)– Stronger reaction to negative than to positive
stimuli/information
BIAS EFFECT
Positivitybias
Negativity bias
Positivity effect
Negativity effect
•Positive expectations
•Negative reactions
Positivity bias
• Positive evaluation of life („illusion of progress”, „pathetic illusion”)
• Positive self-evaluation (positive self-esteem, egotism)
• Illusion of control/egocentric-unrealistic optimism• Positive evaluation of others (halo effect, leniency
effect)
Positive evaluation of life
• Cantril’s ladder• Illusion of progress• Pathetic illusion
010203040506070
perc
ent s
ubje
cts better before
1989
the same
better now
Study (2003): representative sample 1328 Ss
„Paradise lost” phenomenon in Poland
In days of the woolf it was much better!
0102030405060708090
perc
ent s
ubje
cts very bad, bad or
rather bad
neither good norbad
very good, goodor rather good
Evaluation of life now
Study (2003): representative sample 1328 Ss
Når du sammenligner deg med en gjennomsnittlig medlem av din gruppe (samme alder, kjønn og utdannelse) vurderer du dine sjanser til at noen av disse tingene hender deg som:
7 - langt større sjanse
6 - større sjanse
5 - litt større sjanse
4 - samme sjanse
3 - litt mindre sjanse
2 - mindre sjanse
1 - langt mindre sjanse
1. å få tilfredstillende jobb
2. å eie eget hus
3. å ha alkoholproblem
4. å reise til Amerika
5. forsøke selvmord
6. å bli oppsagt på jobben
7. å få begynnerlønn over 220 000 NOK
8. å få lungekreft
9. å få et særlig begavet barn
10. å få hjerteanfall
11. å bli over 80 år
12. å få tidlig skilsmisse
Unrealistic optimism (Neil Weinstein)
• Overstimating own chances for positive events• Underestimating own chances for negative events• Effect stronger for negative than positive• Explanations –
– Motivational - egotistic
– Cognitive (Y. Klar) – any object which focueses attention has more of a compared quality than unspecified „average” object
Unrealistic optimism
Neil Weinstein
Unrealistic optimism stronger for negative than positive events
The golden section in evaluation of people and events
• „Golden section” (sectio aurea) in architecture, sculpture, painting, harmony in music
• „Divine proportion” (divina proportione)
• Golden section: (a+b)/a=a/b
X0,62 0,38
Golden section as principle of beauty
• Architecture
• Urbanism
• Paintings
• Nature
• Photography
Golden section and photography
Golden section and architecture: The Greek Parthenon
Egyptian pyramids
Golden section and paintings: Leonardo da Vinci paintings
Golden section in nature
Plan voisin of Le Corbusier for one of the districts of Paris
Golden section in social cognition
• J. Benjafield & J. Adams-Webber: positivity bias is a manifestation of of the golden section– 62% - positive evaluations– 38% - negative evaluations
• J. Adams-Webber: 38% - maximum information
Positivity bias in language
• Positive words score higher in frequency of use (Zajonc: more frequent words more liked)
• Positive and negative words differ in markedness
Linguistic markedness
• Unmarked categories – more primitive (primary)
– More vague
– Name stands for the whole dimension
• Marked categories – secondary
– More precise and narrow
– Name stands for part of the dimension
Examples
Non-marked Marked
High Low
Thick Thin
Big Small
Dog Bitch
Man Woman
Linguistic markedness – how to diagnose it?
• Type of questions – How long is it? Is it long? NOT: How short is it? Is it
short? – How big is it? Is it big? NOT: How small is it? Is it
small? – How good is it? NOT: How bad is it?
• Comparing negations: negation of unmarked member closer to the marked member than reverse– Not-good = bad– Not-bad =/= good
Positivity-negativity and linguistic markedness
• Positive words - linguistically primitive (nonmarked)
• Negative words – linguistically secondary (marked)
• Open markedness– Intelligent – (Un)intelligent
– Responsible – (Ir)responsible
– Exceptions: Selfish – (Un)selfsh
• Implicit markedness:
– Good - bad
Positivity bias observed
• Unknown stimuli and situations• Ficticious task situations (.e.g, ficticious bets)• Longer time perspective (distant future seems
more positive than close future)• Longer distances (.e.g., Miller’s gradients, „grass
is always greener on the othe other side of the fence”)
Approach gradient usually flatter than avoidance gradient (after: Neil Miller)
Approach gradient
Avoidance gradient
close far
moti
vati
on
strong
weak
vacilliation
Food +el.shock
Negativity effect
• The chain principle – strength of the whole chain depends on its weakest link, not on the strongest
• Negative stimuli and events more important for survival than positive stimuli
Negativity effect
• (Czapiński & Peeters, 1990): Two types of negativity effect: affective and informational– Affective negativity effect: higher impact of
negative than positive evaluations on judgments and behavior
– Informational negativity effect: Higher informational value of negative than positive evaluations
Affective negativity effect (1)
• Negativity effects in impression formation– Single negative trait may outweigh several positive
traits
– It is easier to lose a good reputation than to gain it back
• Negativity effects in attribution– Negative (immoral) behavior leads to more
dispositional attributions than positive (moral) behavior (Jones & Davis, Reeder)
+
-
+
- -
+
-
+Intelligent
Unintelligent
Diagnostic behaviors
Intelligent behavior
Stupid behavior
Honest
Dishonest
Honestbehavior
Dishonestbehavior
Diagnostic behaviors
Affective negativity effect (2)
• Negativity effects in decision making– Utility curve steeper for losses than gains
– Negative decisions taken before positive decisions
Utility curve
PREFERENCES
A B C D E F G
B D E F
B D E F
E
Picking up the promising(potentially positive)
Decision making: negative decisions precede positive decisions
Screening stage: eliminating negative options
Turning the promising into positive
Positivity bias and negativity effects on psychological maps
Residents of Western and Northern Lands
Like- dislike want- do not want to live
Like - dislike want- do not want to live
Residents of the Eastern Wall
Residents of Galicia
Like - dislike Want - do not want to live
Informational negativity effect
• Higher informational value of negative than positive evaluations
Negative draws more attention than positive
• Journalists focus more on negative news
• Scientists interested more in negative than in positive issues (e.g., more theories about negative than positive emotions)
- Som en henrettelse
Negative judgments more sophisticated
• More differentiated language describing negative phenomena. More negative words in dictionaries– Names for negative emotions>names for positive emotions
• Negative judgments more elaborated and better justified than positive judgments– E.g. Decisions to reject vs. accept a paper or a candidate
• More attributional activity invested in explaining negative than positive behaviors and outcomes– Better knowledge on causes of negative than of positive
More interpersonal agreement on what is negative than positive
• Negative words less ambiguous
• Negative labels more diagnostic than positive labels
• Negative – more „objective” status than positive
Affective vs. informational negativity effect
• Affective – strong stimuli
– distance impossible
• Informational – weak stimuli
– distance possible
How to combine positivity bias with negativity effects?
• Opposite phenomena?• Complementary phenomena?
--
+ ++
+
+
+
+
++
+
-
-
-
--
-
-
Negative figures
Positive background
POSITIVITY BIAS
Positive figures
Negative background
NEGATIVITY BIAS
After: Peeters, 1971