Negative Is True Here and Now, But Not So Much There and Then
On the Impact of Psychological Distance on the Negativity Bias
Abstract
Abstract. How do people judge the veracity of a message? The negativity bias in judgments of truth describes the phenomenon that the same message is more likely judged as true when framed negatively compared to positively. This manuscript investigates the negativity bias in conditions of psychological proximity and the possibility that the bias decreases when distance increases. This notion is informed by construal level theory, which holds that negative information is more salient and weighed more strongly in conditions of psychological proximity compared to distance. Against this background, we hypothesize that a negativity bias likely occurs in conditions of proximity. With increasing psychological distance, however, positively compared to negatively framed information is more likely to be judged true, therefore attenuating or even reversing the bias. Two studies provide preliminary yet weak support for this hypothesis. A final registered study put the preliminary conclusions to a critical test and yielded consistent results: We find a significant interaction between frame and distance, indicating a descriptive trend for a negativity bias in conditions of proximity, yet a positivity bias in conditions of distance. This interaction illustrates that psychological distance may impact the negativity bias in truth judgments.
References
(2017). Why good is more alike than bad: Processing implications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 69–79. 10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.006
(2015). Parsimonious mixed models. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967
(2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823
(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. 10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.32310.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
(2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257. 10.1177/1088868309352251
(2003). On wildebeests and humans. Psychological Science, 14(1), 14–18. 10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01412
(2018). Schlüsseldaten über Europa. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/9376771/KS-EI-18-101-DE-N.pdf/724ff2c4-3020-4801-bc9f-8f8347c29bed
(2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 781–795. 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.781
(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
(2015). Toward a deeper understanding of the ecological origins of distance construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 78–86. 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.11.002
(2008). Die deutsche Version des Life-Orientation-Tests (LOT-R) zum dispositionellen Optimismus und Pessimismus [The German version of the Life-Orientation-Test (LOT-R) for dispositional optimism and pessimism]. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 16(1), 26–31. 10.1026/0943-8149.16.1.26
(1975). Logic and conversation. In P. ColeJ. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech arts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
(2007). Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 483–488. 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.008
(2009). Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 983–986. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.012
(2012a). Good things don't come easy (to mind). Experimental Psychology, 59(1), 38–46. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000124
(2012b). How framing statistical statements affects subjective veracity: Validation and application of a multinomial model for judgments of truth. Cognition, 125(1), 37–48. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.009
(2019). Less than I expected and oh so true? On the interplay between expectations and framing effects in judgments of truth. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(5–6), 735–755. 10.1177/0261927X19869392
(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. 10.2307/1914185
(1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
(2016). A general valence asymmetry in similarity: Good is more alike than bad. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(8), 1171–1192. 10.1037/xlm0000243
(2020). emmeans. https://github.com/rvlenth/emmeans
(1992). Positive–negative asymmetry or “when the heart needs a reason”. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(5), 425–434. 10.1002/ejsp.2420220502
(2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205. 10.1126/science.1161958
(2007). Social distance, framing, and judgment: A construal level perspective. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 489–514. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00309.x
(2016). Oxford Dictionary Word of the Year 2016. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016
(1990). Positive–negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1(1), 33–60. 10.1080/14792779108401856
(2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 563–576. 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00058-1
(1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380–391. 10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.380
(1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
(2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421. 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
(2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. 10.1037/a0018963
(2016). PANGEA: Power ANalysis for GEneral Anova Designs [Working Paper, 1–33]. http://jakewestfall.org/publications/pangea.pdf
(2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1123–1138. 10.1086/674212
