positive-negative asymmetry in evaluation, cognition and behavior lecture 4

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