The Negativity Bias in Affective Picture Processing Depends on Top-Down and Bottom-Up Motivational Significance
The Negativity Bias in Affective Picture Processing Depends on Top-Down and Bottom-Up Motivational Significance
Joseph Hilgard
Anna Weinberg
Greg Hajcak Proudfit
Bruce D. Bartholow
Abstract
It is widely believed that terrible statistics is psychologically extra meaningful than fine information, a phenomenon recognised typically as the negativity bias. However, findings regarding the opportunity of a negativity bias in emotional photo processing have been combined, with latest studies indicating the dearth of this kind of bias in occasion-associated mind potentials (ERPs) when first-rate and unsightly pictures are equated for motivational relevance. Here, we investigated two elements that could influence the detection of a negativity bias: photograph presentation paradigm and unique picture content. Across studies,
individuals viewed nice-affiliative, great-interesting, unsightly-threatening and neutral pics supplied within the context of oddball, blocked and random viewing paradigms. Across paradigms, emotional photographs elicited larger responses in the overdue high-quality potential (LPP) than did impartial photos. A negativity bias was detected inside the oddball paradigm and whilst thrilling, instead of affiliative, first-class stimuli were used. Findings are mentioned in terms of factors regarded to steer LPP amplitude and their relevance to differential effects across image viewing paradigms.
The emotional evaluation of human beings and objects is a few of the maximum rapid and automatic strategies inside the mind, often previous conscious focus (see Zajonc, 1980, 1984). Rapid critiques of whether or not a stimulus is useful or risky are crucial to the best and well timed execution of motivated conduct; as an instance, to method a potential reward or flee from a potential hazard. However, regardless of the apparent price in appraising each profitable and dangerous stimuli, whether superb and bad reviews are given equal weight in judgments has been a rely of enormous debate (Briggs & Martin, 2008, 2009; Cacioppo, Berntson, Norris, & Gollan, 2011; Radilova, 1982). The modern examine turned into aimed toward testing whether variations within the particular context wherein have an effect on-associated stimuli are encountered plays a role in figuring out their motivational importance, as determined via the amplitude of late tremendous event-associated mind potentials (ERPs).
The Negativity Bias
The Negativity Bias is the mental phenomenon that, clearly placed, “awful is more potent than suitable” (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). That is, bad events generally tend to have large and longer-lasting outcomes than do nice activities of same magnitude, an effect thought to mirror an evolutionary edition to the extraordinarily extra relevance of chance compared to praise (see Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999). Whereas an inadequate response to high quality records could cause regrets over missed possibilities, an insufficient response to terrible statistics should lead to harm or loss of life. The negativity bias appears pervasive, as proof has been found in some of domain names. For example, in determining lengthy-time period life pride, the results of effective activities have a tendency to put on off greater quick than the consequences of terrible events (Brickman & Campbell, 1971; Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978). Similarly, near dating pride appears to be greater strongly motivated via the presence of negative behaviors and interactions than high-quality ones (Gottman, 1979, 1994; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Also, negative statistics is weighted extra closely than superb facts while forming impressions of others (e.G., Riskey & Birnbaum, 1974; Fiske, 1980; Peeters & Czapinksi, 1990; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). Analogous outcomes also were found at a greater basic degree of evaluative categorization, in that arousal scores greater strongly expect valence scores for unsightly than for first-class photographs (Ito, Cacioppo, & Lang, 1998). In summarizing this literature, Taylor (1991) concluded that terrible activities tend to bring about extra mobilization of cognitive, emotional and social responses than do fine events.
In order to specify the temporal dynamics of evaluative processing, a number of researchers have investigated whether or not the negativity bias in behavior has a psychophysiological counterpart in the ERP (e.G., Bartholow, Fabiani, Gratton, & Bettencourt, 2001; Briggs & Martin, 2008; Carretié, Mercado, Tapia, & Hinojosa, 2001; Cuthbert, Schupp, Bradley, Birbaumer, & Lang, 2000; Delplanque, Silvert, Hot, & Sequeira, 2005; Delplanque, Silvert, Hot, Rigoulot, & Sequeira, 2006; Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998; Schupp et al., 2000;
Smith et al., 2006). Typical paradigms on this area involve individuals viewing units of pleasant, ugly, and impartial stimuli (regularly images) at the same time as ERPs are recorded, with the pleasant and unsightly units matched for arousal and extremity in valence (e.G., Ito et al., 1998b; Radilova, 1982; Schupp et al., 2000). Most such studies have centered on the amplitude of the P300 (P3) and/or past due nice capability (LPP), which are relatively touchy to the motivational significance of eliciting stimuli (e.G., Nieuwenhuis, Aston-Jones, & Cohen, 2005; Weinberg & Hajcak, 2010). Evidence for a negativity bias in the P3/LPP has been mixed, with some research locating larger amplitudes to unpleasant than to pleasant stimuli (e.G., Bartholow et al., 2001; Cuthbert et al., 2000; Delplanque et al., 2005, 2006; Foti, Hajcak, & Dien, 2009; Hajcak & Olvet, 2008; Huang & Luo, 2006; Ito et al., 1998b; Rozenkrants & Polich, 2008), and others finding that ugly and excellent stimuli elicit similarly massive (relative to neutral) P3/LPP responses (Briggs & Martin, 2008, 2009; Diedrich, Naumann, Maier, & Becker, 1997; Palomba, Angrilli, & Mini, 1997; Radilova, 1982; Schupp et al., 2000; Schupp, Junghöfer, Weike, & Hamm, 2003; Weinberg & Hajcak, 2010).
Several feasible reasons can be offered for these reputedly discrepant units of findings. First, past easy valence and arousal ratings, particular photograph content material can also determine how emotional images are evaluated (see Anokhin et al., 2006; Franken, Muris, Nijs, & van Strien, 2008). That is, although certain first-class and unpleasant pictures are rated as similarly arousing and severe in valence, the that means of the depicted scenes varies notably, which could affect the importance of affective, motivational or attentional responses—and, as a result, mind activity—they elicit. Findings from two recent research highlight this trouble. McGraw, Larsen, Kahneman, & Schkade (2010, Study 3) observed that members judged ugly pictures to be more excessive than pleasant pictures, notwithstanding both categories of pictures having been rated as similarly arousing and intense in valence the usage of preferred bipolar rating scales.
Weinberg and Hajcak (2010) provided direct evidence for the perception that self-said valence and arousal rankings do now not properly seize the quantity to which emotional pix impact underlying motivational and attentional responses. These authors determined that pics depicting interesting sports activities and thrill rides elicited smaller LPP amplitude than snap shots depicting erotic and affiliative scenes, in spite of equivalently high tremendous valence ratings for both classes, and that quality and ugly pix maximum associated with motivational imperatives (i.E., photos of mutilated bodies and erotic photos implying procreation) elicited the most important LPP amplitudes, which did no longer vary in significance across valence classes. Weinberg and Hajcak concluded that the plain negativity bias within the LPP found in preceding research (e.G., Ito et al., 1998b) turned into possibly due to using a particular category of much less evocative high-quality stimuli (thrilling sports and thrill rides) instead of a broad bias toward greater processing of unsightly stimuli.
A second opportunity is that the use of different experimental paradigms throughout studies contributes to the chance of finding a negativity bias in the LPP. To date, the query of photo presentation paradigm has obtained little or no systematic attention in the literature (but see Schupp et al., 2000). In principle, variations across paradigms in certain structural features acknowledged to influence LPP amplitude would possibly interact with photo valence to persuade the probability of a negativity bias rising. In unique, while the query of precise photograph contents relates to reviews of the inherent or “bottom-up” motivational importance of emotional pictures (Franken et al., 2008; Weinberg & Hajcak, 2010), different functions, inclusive of whether or now not contributors are required to reply to the snap shots and the relative frequency and predictability of diverse photograph kinds can also impact the LPP, thru variant in pinnacle-down motivational significance (see Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005) and novelty-brought on orienting responses (see Bradley, 2009), capabilities that regularly differ throughout paradigms.@ Read More minisecond
