A general valence asymmetry in similarity: Good is more alike than bad.

Abstract

The density hypothesis (Unkelbach, Fiedler, Bayer, Stegmüller, & Danner, 2008) claims a general higher similarity of positive information to other positive information compared with the similarity of negative information to other negative information. This similarity asymmetry might explain valence asymmetries on all levels of cognitive processing. The available empirical evidence for this general valence asymmetry in similarity suffers from a lack of direct tests, low representativeness, and possible confounding variables (e.g., differential valence intensity, frequency, familiarity, or concreteness of positive and negative stimuli). To address these problems, Study 1 first validated the spatial arrangement method (SpAM) as a similarity measure. Using SpAM, Studies 2-6 found the proposed valence asymmetry in large, representative samples of self- and other-generated words (Studies 2a/2b), for words of consensual and idiosyncratic valence (Study 3), for words from 1 and many independent information sources (Study 4), for real-life experiences (Study 5), and for large data sets of verbal (i.e., ∼14,000 words reported by Warriner, Kuperman, & Brysbaert, 2013) and visual information (i.e., ∼1,000 pictures reported in the IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2005; Study 6). Together, these data support a general valence asymmetry in similarity, namely that good is more alike than bad. (PsycINFO Database Record

Dominance and competence face to face: Dissociations obtained with a reverse correlation approach

“…The angles between likeability and competence indicate a high positive correlation (24°at high pole, 35°at low pole). This density effect has been previously generalized across hundreds of positive and negative words, images and daily events (Koch, Alves, Kr€ uger, & Unkelbach, 2016), and agrees with findings by Bruckm€ uller and Abele (2013) showing that the positive poles of the Big Two (i.e., communion and agency dimensions) are perceived as more similar than their negative poles. We further examined how these differences in the relationship with valence played a role in the negative correlation found between the Dominant and Competent judgments.…”

On Elementary Affective Decisions: To Like Or Not to Like, That Is the Question

“…We have discussed theoretical reasons for these phenomena elsewhere (Sylvester et al, 2016; cf. Ashby and Isen, 1999; Koch et al, 2016) and will not go into details here. For the present purposes, however, two points are important: first, negative stimuli are usually more arousing than positive ones, and, second, positive ones typically are processed faster.…”

“…The authors interpreted this bias in terms of the above discussed asymmetry in semantic representations of negative vs. positive words: negative words are less homogenous, i.e., have less elaborated and cohesive representations (Ashby and Isen, 1999; Koch et al, 2016; Sylvester et al, 2016). Lüdtke and Jacobs (2015) therefore assumed that semantic integration and coherent situation model building for sentences with two negative words could be harder compared to sentences with two positive words.…”

Halo effects from agency behaviors and communion behaviors depend on social context: Why technicians benefit more from showing tidiness than nurses do

“…Comparing the effects of trait/behavior valence (positive vs. negative) to the effects of trait/behavior dimension (agency vs. communion) also contributes to a better understanding of halo effects in general. Gräf and Unkelbach () showed that valence influences the processes (and thus the strength) of halo effects, presumably mediated by trait density/similarity (Koch, Alves, et al, ; Unkelbach, ; Unkelbach et al, ). In contrast, the comparison of agency vs. communion apparently only affected the strength (i.e., halo effects from communion traits/behaviors were stronger than halo effects from agency traits/behaviors), but not the processes of halo effects.…”

“…They based their predictions on the differential similarity of positive information and negative information. Positive information is on average more similar to other positive information, and negative information is on average more distinct from other negative information (Koch, Alves, Krüger, & Unkelbach, ; Unkelbach, ; Unkelbach, Fiedler, Bayer, Stegmüller, & Danner, ). They predicted and found that negative halo effects (sometimes called horn effects ) occur directly by inferences from one salient trait to another.…”