Literature DB >> 26866655

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

Alex Koch1, Hans Alves1, Tobias Krüger2, Christian Unkelbach1.   

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 (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26866655     DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000243

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  13 in total

1.  Semantic relatedness and distinctive processing may inflate older adults' positive memory bias.

Authors:  Kylee T Ack Baraly; Alexandrine Morand; Laura Fusca; Patrick S R Davidson; Pascal Hot
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-10

2.  The Neural Representations of Emotional Experiences Are More Similar Than Those of Neutral Experiences.

Authors:  Martina Riberto; Rony Paz; Gorana Pobric; Deborah Talmi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 6.709

3.  He had it Comin': ERPs Reveal a Facilitation for the Processing of Misfortunes to Antisocial Characters.

Authors:  Pablo Rodríguez-Gómez; Manuel Martín-Loeches; Fernando Colmenares; María Verónica Romero Ferreiro; Eva M Moreno
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.282

Review 4.  Valuing what happens: a biogenic approach to valence and (potentially) affect.

Authors:  Pamela Lyon; Franz Kuchling
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 6.237

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

Authors:  Arthur Jacobs; Markus J Hofmann; Annette Kinder
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-11-24

6.  Inferential Costs of Trait Centrality in Impression Formation: Organization in Memory and Misremembering.

Authors:  Ludmila D Nunes; Leonel Garcia-Marques; Mário B Ferreira; Tânia Ramos
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-08-22

7.  Valence makes a stronger contribution than arousal to affective priming.

Authors:  Zhao Yao; Xiangru Zhu; Wenbo Luo
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 8.  The Emotional Facet of Subjective and Neural Indices of Similarity.

Authors:  Martina Riberto; Gorana Pobric; Deborah Talmi
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 3.020

9.  Social Transmission of Leadership Preference: Knowledge of Group Membership and Partisan Media Reporting Moderates Perceptions of Leadership Ability From Facial Cues to Competence and Dominance.

Authors:  Christopher D Watkins; Dengke Xiao; David I Perrett
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-01-14

10.  Emotional processing of sadness and disgust evoked by disaster scenes.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Jingna Jin; Wenbo Liu; Zhipeng Liu; Tao Yin
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 2.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.