Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-2bg86 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2023-10-02T05:34:24.453Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The negativity bias: Conceptualization, quantification, and individual differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

John T. Cacioppo ,
Stephanie Cacioppo  and
Jackie K. Gollan
John T. Cacioppo
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. Cacioppo@uchicago.eduhttp://psychology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/cacioppo/index.shtml
Stephanie Cacioppo
Affiliation:
High Performance Electrical Neuroimaging Laboratory, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. Cacioppos@uchicago.eduhttps://hpenlaboratory.uchicago.edu/node
Jackie K. Gollan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611. j-gollan@northwestern.eduhttp://fsmweb.northwestern.edu/faculty/FacultyProfile.cfm?xid=16087
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is an extensive literature on the negativity bias, including its conceptualization, measurement, temporal stability (individual differences), and neural and genetic associations. Hibbing et al. posit that the difference across individuals in the negativity bias is a key factor in determining political predisposition. The measures and paradigms developed in this literature provide a means of testing this hypothesis.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 309 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashare, R. L., Norris, C. J., Wileyto, E. P., Cacioppo, J. T. & Strasser, A. A. (2013) Individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias: Gender-specific associations with two serotonin receptor genes. Personality and Individual Differences 55:469–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 5(4):323–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T. & Berntson, G. G. (1994) Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin 115:401–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Norris, C. J. & Gollan, J. K. (2012) The evaluative space model. In: Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 1, ed. Van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A. & Higgins, E. T., pp. 50–72. Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T. & Gardner, W. L. (1999) Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology 50:191–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L. & Berntson, G. G. (1997) Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1:3–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L. & Berntson, G. G. (1999) The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:839–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, L. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (2002) Learning where to look for danger: Integrating affective and spatial information. Psychological Science 13:449–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ito, T. A. & Cacioppo, J. T. (2000) Electrophysiological evidence of implicit and explicit categorization processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36(6):660–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, T. A. & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005) Variations on a human universal: Individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias. Cognition and Emotion 19:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998) Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(4):887–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, J. T. & McGraw, A. P. (2011) Further evidence for mixed emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6:1095–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, J. T., Norris, C. J., McGraw, A. P., Hawkley, L. C. & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009) The evaluative space grid: A single-item measure of positivity and negativity. Cognition and Emotion 23:453–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, C. J., Larsen, J. T., Crawford, L. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011) Better (or worse) for some than others: Individual differences in the positivity offset and negativity bias. Journal of Research in Personality 45:100–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. K., Larsen, J. T., Chartrand, T. L., Cacioppo, J. T., Katafiasz, H. A. & Moran, K. E. (2006) Being bad isn't always good: Evaluative context moderates the attention bias toward negative information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90:210–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar