M
Morpheushasleftthebuilding
Guest
Having a better life, because news is always negative? or you don't have the time for news?
or other reasons?
or other reasons?
I never watch the news. Any time I do, I get hooked on it for a few weeks and feel a constant fear/impending doom of EVERYTHING
Then I walk outside and realize none of the dumb shit on there matters. If there's something really important going on in the world, I'll know through the internet
News = garbage. Can't be trusted and every network is not only biased but cares more about ratings and revenue than giving the people actual truth.
Funny how every day there's so many murders being covered out the 300+ million people who live in America (on our news I mean)... and yet... I bet you there are thousands and thousands of good deeds/volunteer work/doctors helping people/charities/teachers going the extra mile/adoptive parents changing kids lives for the better etc.. that don't get ANY coverage.. because they don't draw ratings. Maybe ONCE in a while they throw in a little story.. but the other 60 mins are about how afraid we should be and how many people are getting harmed out there.
Just amazing. If they actually spent time talking about these things in proportion to the population.. the fear mongering and garbage would take up such a little percent of time.
But that's all they want to focus on. Complete trash and gives people a skewed view of the world that is nowhere near true, because people can't grasp how large this planet is.. and how isolated these incidents are... instead of enjoying life.. they sit in front of the TV and shake in their boots over what the TV says might happen to them
I can't think of how many times I was afraid of this organization or that one... North Korea, Iraq, Osama, Isis, ETC
Everyone was gonna hurt me! Everyone should be afraid and in mass panic!
Well guess what, not a single on of those fucking things has ever affected me and the chances of it are slim. It's ok to talk about these realities but it's a 24/7 source of pointless fear and hate manufacturing, brainwashing people to be prejudice against anyone that resembles the bad guys they see on TV... all under the guise of "reporting"/. If you MUST focus on war, how about some pieces on soldiers that make the world a better place and do good things?
Or a story on sick kids being cheered up at the hospital somehow
How about have an entire news piece on "not too many bad things happened today. Out of 300 million, the overwhelming majority is ok today and did not get murdered or nuked. Instead of focusing on the microscopic percentage of bad things to make you afraid, we are going to talk about who fortunate we all are to be alive, because that news is great news"
Nope
GUNS, DEATH, CORRUPTION, MONEY, NANCY GRACE, BRUCE JENNER. GET INFURIATED OVER THINGS THAT HAVE NO IMPACT ON YOU! LIVE IN FEAR!
Then I walk outside and realize none of the dumb shit on there matters. If there's something really important going on in the world, I'll know through the internet
News = garbage. Can't be trusted and every network is not only biased but cares more about ratings and revenue than giving the people actual truth.
Funny how every day there's so many murders being covered out the 300+ million people who live in America (on our news I mean)... and yet... I bet you there are thousands and thousands of good deeds/volunteer work/doctors helping people/charities/teachers going the extra mile/adoptive parents changing kids lives for the better etc.. that don't get ANY coverage.. because they don't draw ratings. Maybe ONCE in a while they throw in a little story.. but the other 60 mins are about how afraid we should be and how many people are getting harmed out there.
Just amazing. If they actually spent time talking about these things in proportion to the population.. the fear mongering and garbage would take up such a little percent of time.
But that's all they want to focus on. Complete trash and gives people a skewed view of the world that is nowhere near true, because people can't grasp how large this planet is.. and how isolated these incidents are... instead of enjoying life.. they sit in front of the TV and shake in their boots over what the TV says might happen to them
I can't think of how many times I was afraid of this organization or that one... North Korea, Iraq, Osama, Isis, ETC
Everyone was gonna hurt me! Everyone should be afraid and in mass panic!
Well guess what, not a single on of those fucking things has ever affected me and the chances of it are slim. It's ok to talk about these realities but it's a 24/7 source of pointless fear and hate manufacturing, brainwashing people to be prejudice against anyone that resembles the bad guys they see on TV... all under the guise of "reporting"/. If you MUST focus on war, how about some pieces on soldiers that make the world a better place and do good things?
Or a story on sick kids being cheered up at the hospital somehow
How about have an entire news piece on "not too many bad things happened today. Out of 300 million, the overwhelming majority is ok today and did not get murdered or nuked. Instead of focusing on the microscopic percentage of bad things to make you afraid, we are going to talk about who fortunate we all are to be alive, because that news is great news"
Nope
GUNS, DEATH, CORRUPTION, MONEY, NANCY GRACE, BRUCE JENNER. GET INFURIATED OVER THINGS THAT HAVE NO IMPACT ON YOU! LIVE IN FEAR!
Last edited:
that was epic galanis. couldnt have said it better even if I tried.
I havent watched the news for decades. and I dont feel like i am missing anything. I am far better off and happier without it.
I havent watched the news for decades. and I dont feel like i am missing anything. I am far better off and happier without it.
P
Punch
Guest
The Reason Some People Always Focus On The Negative - Waking Times : Waking Times
The Reason Some People Always Focus On The Negative
Josh Richardson, Prevent Disease
Waking Times
If we look at the physical world, we find that negativity is present — ordered things have shown the tendency to become disordered sooner or later, however natural. The same applies to human behavior, however genetic. A new study by a University of British Columbia researcher finds that some people are genetically predisposed to see the world darkly.
It is interesting to see that the human mind which is considered to be the most ordered and conscious system in the world is not left untouched by the negative effects of the environment. Negativity is all-pervasive, it seems.
The study, published in Psychological Science, finds that a previously known gene variant can cause individuals to perceive emotional events–especially negative ones — more vividly than others.
The ability to regulate emotions is essential to both mental and physical well-being. Conversely, difficulties with emotion regulation have been postulated as a core mechanism underlying mood and anxiety disorders.
The ability to identify and distinguish between negative emotions helps us address the problem that led to those emotions in the first place. But while some people can tell the difference between feeling angry and guilty, others may not be able to separate the two. Distinguishing between anger and frustration is even harder. Emotions can also become problematic — for example, for people with depression who can’t stop thinking about negative thoughts.
“This is the first study to find that this genetic variation can significantly affect how people see and experience the world,” says Prof. Rebecca Todd of UBC’s Dept. of Psychology. “The findings suggest people experience emotional aspects of the world partly through gene-coloured glasses — and that biological variations at the genetic level can play a significant role in individual differences in perception.”
The gene in question is the ADRA2b deletion variant, which influences the hormone and neurotransmitter norepinephrine. Previously found to play a role in the formation of emotional memories, the new study shows that the ADRA2b deletion variant also plays a role in real-time perception.
The study’s 200 participants were shown positive, negative and neutral words in a rapid succession. Participants with the ADRA2b gene variant were more likely to perceive negative words than others, while both groups perceived positive words better than neutral words to an equal degree.
“These individuals may be more likely to pick out angry faces in a crowd of people,” says Todd. “Outdoors, they might notice potential hazards — places you could slip, loose rocks that might fall — instead of seeing the natural beauty.”
The findings shed new light on ways in which genetics — combined with other factors such as education, culture, and moods — can affect individual differences in emotional perception and human subjectivity, the researchers say.
Further research is planned to explore this phenomenon across ethnic groups. While more than half of Caucasians are believed to have the ADRA2b gene variant, statistics suggest it is significantly less prevalent in other ethnicities. For example, a recent study found that only 10 per cent of Rwandans had the ADRA2b gene variant.
Contagious?
The increased risk of depression that comes with negative thinking also seems to rub off.
In the study in Clinical Psychological Science, researchers looked at 103 pairs of college-freshmen roommates’ “cognitive vulnerability,” which is the tendency to think that negative events are a reflection of a person’s own deficiency or that they will lead to more negative events. Those with high cognitive vulnerability are at an increased risk of depression, studies have found.
“We found that participants’ level of cognitive vulnerability was significantly influenced by their roommates’ level of cognitive vulnerability, and vice versa,” the researchers wrote. All roommates in the study were selected randomly; students did not choose their roommates. Only three months of living together was needed for this contagiousness to be seen.
The researchers also found that those who experienced an increase in cognitive vulnerability during the first three months of college had nearly twice the level of depressive symptoms at six months, compared with those who did not experience an increase in cognitive vulnerability, according to the study. The effect was particularly strong when participants were under high-stress conditions.
Prior to this study, it was thought that cognitive vulnerability didn’t change much once a person passed early adolescence. However, the new findings suggest that during big transitions in life — when a person is continually exposed to a new social situation — cognitive vulnerability can be altered, the researchers said.
They noted that genetic, biological and environmental factors all likely play a role in a person’s level of cognitive vulnerability.
Further research is needed to determine whether cognitive vulnerability may change over time, the researchers said, noting that college freshmen are in a unique social environment.
“Our findings are consistent with a growing number of studies that have found that many psychological and biological factors previously thought to be set in stone by adulthood continue to be malleable,” the researchers said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negativity bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Negativity bias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The negativity bias[1] (also known as the negativity effect) refers to the notion that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than do neutral or positive things.[2][3][4] In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk considerations.
Explanations
Paul Rozin and Edward Royzman proposed four elements of the negativity bias in order to explain its manifestation: negative potency, steeper negative gradients, negativity dominance, and negative differentiation.[4]
Negative potency refers to the notion that, while possibly of equal magnitude or emotionality, negative and positive items/events/etc. are not equally salient. Rozin and Royzman note that this characteristic of the negativity bias is only empirically demonstrable in situations with inherent measurability, such as comparing how positively or negatively a change in temperature is interpreted.
With respect to positive and negative gradients, it appears to be the case that negative events are thought to be perceived as increasingly more negative than positive events are increasingly positive the closer one gets (spatially or temporally) to the affective event itself. In other words, there is a steeper negative gradient than positive gradient. For example, the negative experience of an impending dental surgery is perceived as increasingly more negative the closer one gets to the date of surgery than the positive experience of an impending party is perceived as increasingly more positive the closer one gets to the date of celebration (assuming for the sake of this example that these events are equally positive and negative). Rozin and Royzman argue that this characteristic is distinct from that of negative potency because there appears to be evidence of steeper negative slopes relative to positive slopes even when potency itself is low.
Negativity dominance describes the tendency for the combination of positive and negative items/events/etc. to skew towards an overall more negative interpretation than would be suggested by the summation of the individual positive and negative components. Phrasing in more Gestalt-friendly terms, the whole is more negative than the sum of its parts.
Negative differentiation is consistent with evidence suggesting that the conceptualization of negativity is more elaborate and complex than that of positivity. For instance, research indicates that negative vocabulary is more richly descriptive of the affective experience than that of positive vocabulary.[5] Furthermore, there appear to be more terms employed to indicate negative emotions than positive emotions.[6][7] The notion of negative differentiation is consistent with the mobilization-minimization hypothesis,[8] which posits that negative events, as a consequence of this complexity, require a greater mobilization of cognitive resources to deal with the affective experience and a greater effort to minimize the consequences.
Evidence
Social judgments and impression formation
Most of the early evidence suggesting a negativity bias stems from research on social judgments and impression formation, in which it became clear that negative information was typically more heavily weighted when participants were tasked with forming comprehensive evaluations and impressions of other target individuals.[9][10] Generally speaking, when people are presented with a range of trait information about a target individual, the traits are neither "averaged" nor "summed" to reach a final impression.[11] When these traits differ in terms of their positivity and negativity, negative traits disproportionately impact the final impression.[12][13][14][15][16] This is specifically in line with the notion of negativity dominance[4] (see "Explanations" above).
As an example, a famous study by Leon Festinger and colleagues investigated critical factors in predicting friendship formation; the researchers concluded that whether or not people became friends was most strongly predicted by their proximity to one another.[17] Ebbesen, Kjos, and Konecni, however, demonstrated that proximity itself does not predict friendship formation; rather, proximity serves to amplify the information that is relevant to the decision of either forming or not forming a friendship.[18] Negative information is just as amplified as positive information by proximity. As negative information tends to outweigh positive information, proximity may predict a failure to form friendships even more so than successful friendship formation.[2]
One explanation that has been put forth as to why such a negativity bias is demonstrated in social judgments is that people may generally consider negative information to be more diagnostic of an individual's character than positive information, that it is more useful than positive information in forming an overall impression.[19] This is supported by indications of higher confidence in the accuracy of one's formed impression when it was formed more on the basis of negative traits than positive traits.[2][14] People consider negative information to be more important to impression formation and, when it is available to them, they are subsequently more confident.
An oft-cited paradox,[20][21] a dishonest person can sometimes act honestly while still being considered to be predominantly dishonest; on the other hand, an honest person who sometimes does dishonest things will likely be reclassified as a dishonest person. It is expected that a dishonest person will occasionally be honest, but this honesty will not counteract the prior demonstrations of dishonesty. Honesty is considered more easily tarnished by acts of dishonesty. Honesty itself would then be not diagnostic of an honest nature, only the absence of dishonesty.
The presumption that negative information has greater diagnostic accuracy is also evident in voting patterns. Voting behaviors have been shown to be more affected or motivated by negative information than positive: people tend to be more motivated to vote against a candidate because of negative information than they are to vote for a candidate because of positive information.[22][23] As noted by researcher Jill Klein, "character weaknesses were more important than strengths in determining…the ultimate vote".[23]
This diagnostic preference for negative traits over positive traits is thought to be a consequence of behavioral expectations: there is a general expectation that, owing to social requirements and regulations, people will generally behave positively and exhibit positive traits. Contrastingly, negative behaviors/traits are more unexpected and, thus, more salient when they are exhibited.[1][2][10][19][24] The relatively greater salience of negative events or information means they ultimately play a greater role in the judgment process.
Cognition
As addressed by negative differentiation,[4] negative information seems to require greater information processing resources and activity than does positive information; people tend to think and reason more about negative events than positive events.[8][25] Neurological differences also point to greater processing of negative information: participants exhibit greater event-related potentials when reading about, or viewing photographs of, people performing negative acts that were incongruent with their traits than when reading about incongruent positive acts.[26][27][28] This additional processing leads to differences between positive and negative information in attention, learning, and memory.
Attention
A number of studies have suggested that negativity is essentially an attention magnet. For example, when tasked with forming an impression of presented target individuals, participants spent longer looking at negative photographs than they did looking at positive photographs.[10] Similarly, participants registered more eye blinks when studying negative words than positive words[29] (blinking rate has been positively linked to cognitive activity[30][31]).
Importantly, this preferential attendance to negative information is evident even when the affective nature of the stimuli is irrelevant to the task itself. Drs. Felicia Pratto and Oliver P. John administered a modified Stroop task to participants in an effort to investigate the automatic vigilance hypothesis.[32] Participants were presented with a series of positive and negative personality traits in several different colors; as each trait appeared on the screen, participants were to name the color as quickly as possible. Even though the positive and negative elements of the words were immaterial to the color-naming task, participants were slower to name the color of negative traits than they were positive traits. This difference in response latencies indicates that greater attention was devoted to processing the trait itself when it was negative.
Aside from studies of eye blinks and color naming, Baumeister and colleagues noted in their review of "bad events" versus "good events"[2] that there is also easily accessible, real-world evidence for this attentional bias: bad news sells more papers and the bulk of successful novels are full of negative events and turmoil. When taken in conjunction with the laboratory-based experiments, there is strong support for the notion that negative information generally has a stronger pull on attention than does positive information.
Learning and memory
Learning and memory are direct consequences of attentional processing: the more attention is directed or devoted toward something, the more likely it is that it will be later learned and remembered. Research concerning the effects of punishment and reward on learning suggests that punishment for incorrect responses is more effective in enhancing learning than are rewards for correct responses—learning occurs more quickly following bad events than good events.[33][34]
Drs. Pratto and John addressed the effects of affective information on incidental memory as well as attention using their modified Stroop paradigm (see section concerning "Attention"). Not only were participants slower to name the colors of negative traits, they also exhibited better incidental memory for the presented negative traits than they did for the positive traits, regardless of the proportion of negative to positive traits in the stimuli set.[32]
Intentional memory is also impacted by the stimuli's negative or positive quality. When studying both positive and negative behaviors, participants tend to recall more negative behaviors during a later memory test than they do positive behaviors, even after controlling for serial position effects.[35][36] There is also evidence that people exhibit better recognition memory and source memory for negative information.[29][37]
When asked to recall a recent emotional event, people tend to report negative events more often than they report positive events,[38] and this is thought to be because these negative memories are more salient than are the positive memories. People also tend to underestimate how frequently they experience positive affect, in that they more often forget the positively emotional experiences than they forget negatively emotional experiences.[39]
Decision-making
Studies of the negativity bias have also been related to research within the domain of decision-making, specifically as it relates to risk aversion or loss aversion. When presented with a situation in which a person stands to either gain something or lose something depending on the outcome, potential costs are more heavily considered than potential gains.[1][33][40] The greater consideration of losses (i.e. negative outcomes) is in line with the principle of negative potency as proposed by Rozin and Royzman.[4] This issue of negativity and loss aversion as it relates to decision-making is most notable addressed by Drs. Daniel Kahneman's and Amos Tversky's prospect theory.
Lifespan development
Infancy
Although most of the research concerning the negativity bias has been conducted with adults (particularly undergraduate students), there have been a small number of infant studies also suggesting negativity biases.
Infants are thought to interpret ambiguous situations on the basis of how others around them react. When an adult (e.g. experimenter, mother) displays reactions of happiness, fear, or neutrality towards target toys, infants tend to approach the toy associated with the negative reaction significantly less than the neutral and positive toys.[41][42][43][44] Furthermore, there was greater evidence of neural activity when the infants were shown pictures of the "negative" toy than when shown the "positive" and "neutral" toys.[45] Although recent work with 3-month-olds suggests a negativity bias in social evaluations, as well,[46] there is also work suggesting a potential positivity bias in attention to emotional expressions in infants younger than 7 months.[47][48][49] A review of the literature conducted by Drs. Amrisha Vaish, Tobias Grossman, and Amanda Woodward suggests the negativity bias may emerge during the second half of an infant's first year, although the authors also note that research on the negativity bias and affective information has been woefully neglected within the developmental literature.[44]
Aging and older adults
Interestingly, some research indicates that older adults may display, at least in certain situations, a positivity bias or positivity effect.[50][51][52] Proposed by Dr. Laura Carstensen and colleagues, the socioemotional selectivity theory outlines a shift in goals and emotion regulation tendencies with advancing age, resulting in a preference for positive information over negative information. Aside from the evidence in favor of a positivity bias, though, there have still been many documented cases of older adults displaying a negativity bias.[53][54]
See also- Pollyanna hypothesis[24]
- Positivity effect
- Prospect theory
- Automatic vigilance hypothesis[32][55]
- Leniency effect[56]
- Positive–negative asymmetry[3][5]
- List of biases in judgment and decision making
- Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. (1972). Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, S. Valins, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
- Baumeister, Roy F.; Finkenauer, Catrin; Vohs, Kathleen D. (2001). "Bad is stronger than good" (PDF). Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Lewicka, Maria; Czapinski, Janusz; Peeters, Guido (1992). "Positive-negative asymmetry or "When the heart needs a reason"". European Journal of Social Psychology 22 (5): 425–434. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220502. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Rozin, Paul; Royzman, Edward B. (2001). "Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion". Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (4): 296–320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Peeters, Guido (1971). "The positive-negative asymmetry: On cognitive consistency and positivity bias". European Journal of Social Psychology 1 (4): 455–474. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010405. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Averill, J. R., (1980). On the paucity of positive emotions. In K. R. Blankstein, P. Pliner, & J. Polivy (Eds.), Advances in the study of communication and affect, Vol. 6 (p. 745). New York: Plenum.
- Carlson, Earl R. (1966). "The affective tone of psychology". Journal of General Psychology 75 (1): 65–78. doi:10.1080/00221309.1966.9710350. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Taylor, Shelley E. (1991). "Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin 110 (1): 67–85. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67. PMID 1891519. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Berry, Diane S.; Hiller, Wendy S.; Mueller, Jennifer S.; Pennebaker, James W. (1997). "Linguistic bases of social perception." (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (5): 526–537. doi:10.1177/0146167297235008. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Fiske, Susan T. (1980). "Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (6): 889–906. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Asch, Solomon E. (1946). "Forming impressions of personality". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 41 (3): 258–290. doi:10.1037/h0055756. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Anderson, Norman H. (1965). "Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology 70 (4): 394–400. doi:10.1037/h0022280. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Feldman, S. (1966). Motivational aspects of attitudinal elements and their place in cognitive interaction. In S. Feldman (Ed.), Cognitive consistency: Motivational antecedents and behavioral consequences (pp. 75–108). New York: Academic Press.
- Hamilton, David L.; Zanna, Mark P. (1972). "Differential weighting of favorable and unfavorable attributes in impressions of personality.". Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 6 (2–3): 204–212. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Hodges, Bert H. (1974). "Effect of valence on relative weighting in impression formation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30 (3): 378–381. doi:10.1037/h0036890. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Wyer, Robert S.; Hinkle, Ronald L. (1976). "Informational factors underlying inferences about hypothetical persons". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34 (3): 481–495. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.481. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Festinger, L., Schacter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of a housing community. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Ebbesen, Ebbe B.; Kjos, Glenn L.; Konecni, Vladimir J. (1976). "Spatial ecology: Its effects on the choice of friends and enemies" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12 (6): 505–518. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(76)90030-5. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Hamilton, David L.; Huffman, Leroy J. (1971). "Generality of impression formation processes for evaluative and nonevaluative judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20 (2): 200–207. doi:10.1037/h0031698. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
- Martijn, Carolien; Spears, Russell; van der Pligt, Joop; Jakobs, Esther (1992). "Negativity and positivity effects in person perception and inference: Ability versus morality." (PDF). European Journal of Social Psychology 22 (5): 453–463. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220504. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Skowronski, John J.; Carlston, Donal E. (1992). "Caught in the act: When impressions based on highly diagnostic behaviors are resistant to contradiction.". European Journal of Social Psychology 22 (5): 435–452. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220503. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Klein, Jill G. (1991). "Negativity effects in impression formation: A test in the political arena". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (4): 412–418. doi:10.1177/0146167291174009. ISSN 0146-1672. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Klein, Jill G. (1998). "Negativity in intradimensional judgments of presidential candidates". Advances in Consumer Research 25: 574–577. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Boucher, Jerry; Osgood, Charles E. (1969). "The Pollyanna hypothesis". Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80002-2. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Abele, Andrea (1985). "Thinking about thinking: Causal, evaluative and finalistic cognitions about social situations". European Journal of Social Psychology 15 (3): 315–332. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150306. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Huanga, Yu-Xia; Luoa, Yue-Jia (2006). "Temporal course of emotional negativity bias: An ERP study". Neuroscience Letters 398 (1–2): 91–96. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.12.074. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Ito, Tiffany A.; Cacioppo, John T. (2000). "Electrophysiological evidence of implicit and explicit categorization processes". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36 (6): 660–676. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1430. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Ito, Tiffany A.; Larsen, Jeff T.; Smith, N. Kyle; Cacioppo, John T. (1998). "Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (4): 887–900. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Ohira, Hideki; Winton, Ward M.; Oyama, Makiko (1998). "Effects of stimulus valence on recognition memory and endogenous eyeblinks: Further evidence for positive-negative asymmetry". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (9): 986–993. doi:10.1177/0146167298249006. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Fogarty, Christine; Stern, John A. (1989). "Eye movements and blinks: Their relationship to higher cognitive processes". International Journal of Psychophysiology 8 (1): 35–42. doi:10.1016/0167-8760(89)90017-2. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Ohira, Hideki (1996). "Eyeblink activity in a word-naming task as a function of semantic priming and cognitive load". Perceptual and Motor Skills 82 (3 Pt 1): 835–842. doi:10.2466/pms.1996.82.3.835. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Pratto, Felicia; Oliver, John P. (1991). "Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (3): 380–391. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.380. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Costantini, Arthur F.; Hoving, Kenneth L. (1973). "The effectiveness of reward and punishment contingencies on response inhibition". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 16 (3): 484–494. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(73)90009-X. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Penney, Ronald K.; Lupton, A. A. (1961). "Children's discrimination learning as a function of reward and punishment". Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 54 (4): 449–451. doi:10.1037/h0045445. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Dreben, Elizabeth K.; Fiske, Susan T.; Hastie, Reid (1979). "The independence of evaluative and item information: Impression and recall order effects in behavior-based impression formation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (10): 1758–1768. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1758. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Skowronski, John J.; Carlston, Donal E. (1987). "Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (4): 689–699. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.689. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Robinson-Riegler, Gregory L.; Winton, Ward M. (1996). "The role of conscious recollection in recognition of affective material: Evidence for positive-negative asymmetry". The Journal of General Psychology 123 (2): 93–104. doi:10.1080/00221309.1996.9921263. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Finkenauer, Catrin; Rimé, Bernard (1998). "Socially shared emotional experiences vs. emotional experiences kept secret: Differential characteristics and consequences". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 17 (3): 295–318. doi:10.1521/jscp.1998.17.3.295. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Thomas, David L.; Diener, Ed (1990). "Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (2): 291–297. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.291. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Wells, Jennifer D.; Hobfoll, Stevan E.; Lavin, Justin (1999). "When it rains, it pours: The greater impact of resource loss compared to gain on psychological distress". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (9): 1172–1182. doi:10.1177/01461672992512010. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Hertenstein, Matthew J.; Campos, Joseph J. (2001). "Emotion regulation via maternal touch". Infancy 2 (4): 549–566. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0204_09. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Mumme, Donna L.; Fernald, Anne (2003). "The infant as onlooker: Learning from emotional reactions observed in a television scenario" (PDF). Child Development 74 (1): 221–237. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00532. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Mumme, Donna L.; Fernald, Anne; Herrera, Carla (1996). "Infants' responses to facial and vocal emotional signals in a social referencing paradigm" (PDF). Child Development 67 (6): 3219–3237. doi:10.2307/1131775. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Vaish, Amrisha; Grossmann, Tobias; Woodward, Amanda (2008). "Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in social-emotional development". Psychological Bulletin 134 (3): 383–403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383. PMC 3652533. PMID 18444702.
- Carver, Leslie J.; Vaccaro, Brenda G. (2007). "12-month-old infants allocate increased neural resources to stimuli associated with negative adult emotion". Developmental Psychology 43 (1): 54–69. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.54. PMC 3593093. PMID 17201508.
- Hamlin, J. Kiley; Wynn, Karen; Bloom, Paul. "3-month-olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations". Developmental Science 13 (6): 923–929. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00951.x. PMC 2966030. PMID 20977563.
- Farroni, Teresa; Menon, Enrica; Rigato, Silvia (2007). "The perception of facial expressions in newborns". European Journal of Developmental Psychology 4 (1): 2–13. doi:10.1080/17405620601046832. PMC 2836746. PMID 20228970.
- Schwartz, Gail M.; Izard, Carroll E.; Ansul, Susan E. (1985). "The 5-month-old's ability to discriminate facial expressions of emotion". Infant Behavior and Development 8 (1): 65–77. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(85)80017-5. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Wilcox, Barbara M.; Clayton, Frances L. (1968). "Infant visual fixation on motion pictures of human faces". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 6 (1): 22–32. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(68)90068-4. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Fung, Helene H.; Carstensen, Laura L. (2003). "Sending memorable messages to the old: Age differences in preferences and memory for advertisements" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (1): 163–178. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.163. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Mather, Mara; Carstensen, Laura L. (2005). "Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory" (PDF). TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 9 (10): 496–502. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005. PMID 16154382. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Wood, Stacey; Kisley, Michael A. (2006). "The negativity bias is eliminated in older adults: Age-related reduction in event-related brain potentials associated with evaluative categorization" (PDF). Psychology and Aging 21 (4): 815–820. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.815. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Holland, Alisha C.; Kensinger, Elizabeth A. (2012). "Younger, middle-aged, and older adults' memories for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election". Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 1 (3): 163–170. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.001. PMC 3524976. PMID 23264932.
- Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Ohta, N. (Eds.) (2012). Memory and aging: Current issues and future directions. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
- Irwin, Marc; Tripodi, Tony; Bieri, James (1967). "Affective stimulus value and cognitive complexity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5 (4): 444–448. doi:10.1037/h0024406. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
- Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. (1954). Person perception. In G. Lindsey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 634–654). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Early negativity bias occurring prior to experiencing of emotion: An ERP study. Dong, G. et al. (2011)
- A note on negativity bias and framing response asymmetry. Sonsino, D. (2011)
- Theory and Research Information on theoretical aspect of negativity bias.
- Negativity Bias- description Video.
P
Punch
Guest
FRAT: Some people are possibly genetically predisposed to be negative focused. Some people's experiences make them more likely to see things negatively.
M
Morpheushasleftthebuilding
Guest
i liked it.
I closely follow all the news in my state and county. I like to know what's going on in my community.
P
Punch
Guest
Miss that guy.
