The Negativity Effect in Interaction It's All in Your Point of View

Abstract

The negativity effect is defined as thedisproportionateweightingofnegative information in comparison to equidistantly rialenced positive information in the formation of judgments. The informativeness explanation ofthe negativity effect posits that the evaluative extremity (the distance from a psychological neutral point) and evaluative valence (positivelnegafiael of an event serve as determinants of its informativeness. Traditionally, this informativeness hypothesis explains the Occurrence of a negativity effect by presuming a skcwcd distribution with unequal tails for the frequency of outcomesfor valence; a mirror-image distribution for informativeness as afunction ofmlence; and a negative, linear relationship between typicality and informativeness. These three assumptions were tested directly in this research through thefitting of nonlinear equations. It was determined that (a) a negatively skewed distribution ofoutcomesfor valence does not occur in interaction contexts and that (b) typicality was a determinant ofinformativeness, although its importance as a determinant varies in response to whether one's perspective is that ofan observer or a participant. Thus, reliance on evaluative extremity and evaluative valence as determinants of informativeness was rejected; these variables are only descriptors when the distribution for the frequency of outcomesfor valence is skmed and has uneven tails.onversations contain information and are vehicles for information exchange (Kellermann, 1987). Conversations are C rich in their provisions of both content and relational information, although relatively little of the information available in the conversational stream is remembered by participants. Although the gist of conversations can be recognized at above chance levels

Attributions for nonverbal expressions of liking and disliking: The extended self‐serving bias

“…Several scholars have investigated and theorized about the differences in receivers' and observers' reactions to behavior. While receivers' and observers' perceptions are expected to covary (Burgoon & Newton, 1991), a number of studies have documented a "positivity bias" whereby participant receivers judge an actor's behavior more favorably than do observers (e.g., Kellermann, 1989;Manusov, 1993;Street, Mulac, & Wiemann, 1988). This effect is thought to reflect the difference in receivers' and observers' perceptual stance (see Krugalanski, 1989), in which receivers are subjected to the implications of actors' behaviors while observers are not.…”

The role of trust in buyer–seller conflict management

“…Within the marital literature, two classes of attributions have been distinguished: causal attributions -related to the locus, stability, and globality of the cause of an event; and the more specific responsibility attributions -which focus only on the locus of cause for the event, such as self or partner (Fincham et al, 2000). Work in this literature identifies a saliency bias for active, intense, and negative stimuli in making relational inferences (Kellermann, 1984;Kellermann, 1989). Further, during conflict episodes, there is a tendency to attribute negative behaviors to the relational partner (Bradbury and Fincham, 1990) which, in turn, is implicated in the identified actor-observer bias associated with the tendency to blame the partner for the conflict (Sillars, 1980;Bradbury and Fincham, 1990).…”

The Power of Sharing Negative Information in a Dyadic Context

“…It is equally important to measure the impressions of the two actors together. This reflects Kellermann's (1989) suggestion that the Negativity Effect should be studied in a conversational setting where both interactants actively participate.…”