Consider the following statements: “War continues.” “No sign of peace.” Does our brain treat these two sentences differently, despite their identical meaning? A new study suggests it does. British researchers showed that we are better at detecting words that carry negative meaning than those that are positive. Volunteers were exposed to a word for a fraction of a second—too short a time to consciously read the word—and then asked to guess whether the word was neutral or had emotional content (either positive or negative). The subjects were most accurate at detecting the negative words.
The mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are not clear, but lead author David Carmel, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at New York University, speculates that the brain might process negative stimuli faster than positive ones. A different explanation could be that information processing is equally fast for both types of information but that negative words better capture our attention, causing the processing to start earlier.
This article was originally published with the title Accentuating the Negative.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentI think that was a bad example. Or maybe I will just reinforce the study :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 2 statements are most certainly not identical. Similar, yes. "War continues" sounds like an update for the day, with a more retrospective look. "No sign of peace" gives much more foward looking information on the conflict.
-- ildenizen, I heartedly agree. It is such nuances within language that make subtle concepts and poetry beautiful. The only way I can think of to keep nuances to a minimum is by using mathematics. That's why mathematics was invented; to have a language without extra meanings but enough content to avoid tautologies. In other words, the study should have developed a new small simple symbolic language that contained negative and positive meanings and perhaps negating and positiviting (to coin a word) symbols. Then, tested those on volunteers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill and Denizen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the piece. Those statements that you're discussing were ill-chosen, and really had nothing to do with the study.
Cyberia: Re-read my response. I have re-read the piece. The study stands or falls on the negativity or positivity that vocabulary brings to the study. The study should also be valid with various different cultures and languages. The statements we are discussing are indubitably "ill-chosen". But since we don't get to see other statements, and given the problem of finding a single value per word vocabulary, it remains an open question on whether the study is valid or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin a fraction of a second the brain probably sees "no" and "continues" as commands of sorts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the first statement "continues" implies movement
and the second with "no" says Stop.
On the most basic level there is no nuance. Given time to consciously read the content is not what this study was about.
In the fraction of a second used in the study - maybe the brain sees "no" and "continues" as types of commands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the first statement "continues" implies "Go"
and the second with "no" says "Stop".
On the most basic level there is no time for nuance.
Giving enough time to consciously read the content is not what this study was about.
oops! my draft went up (while I was registering). sorry!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMs. Branan: I appreciate the mention of one of the researchers names (even if you left out the co-lead author). But it really isn't that difficult to include the name of the journal article or a link to it. This one even happens to be available for free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Murder, She Wrote: Enhanced Sensitivity to Negative Word Valence"
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=1836822
As for the comments about phrase processing, they don't really apply to the article in question. The experiment was about individual words. Some of the other commenters' concerns were addressed too. The experimenters did explain why they used words instead of symbols.
I have noticed that one gets much better results in communication if one talks positively instead of negatively. In other words, its better to say what you want to happen rather than complain about what you don't want to happen. A classic example would be of a couple where one partner is upset about nothing getting to spend much time together. Complaining about the time they spend apart results in their partner feeling like they're being attacked. Speaking fondly of the time they spend together leaves their partner feeling appreciated. Only one of these gets the desired result. Essentially, "I don't like the time we spend apart" and "I like the time we spend together", while logically consistent are not consistent in their results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it fascinating that saying the same thing two different ways can have such an impact on the way we perceive the phrase.
I've often wondered if negativity resonates and reverberates in ones thoughts and feelings more powerfully than positivity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people like to start their answers to questions with "No" even when it turns out they aren't actually in disagreement with the question posed. It seems like snap judgments often are stated that way.
Is this an innate (in many people) manner of gaining the upper-hand by putting the questioner somewhat in an emotionally biased position?
A factor that I believe this study may have failed to consider is the possibility of an attitude-related bias. The results of the study could simply mean that people have a tendency to have a bias towards negativity. For example, if a person answered "negative" on every word, the negative responses would have a success rate of 100% while the positive responses would have a success rate of 0%. This does not mean that people recognize negative words faster; they just have a propensity toward negativity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdespite the example given in this article, it's really about the message. just ask yourself, "do i usually respond to negative emotional cues more than positive ones?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthen see, where you might stand.
Think Readability. Compare "War Yes" to "Peace No" or "More War" to "No Peace" "Continues" is a much longer and more complex word, harder to understand following the very short "war." "No sign of peace" is four words and metaphorical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do scan rather than read headlines, and probably for only a fraction of a second. I know that I sometimes misread a line, and what I see is funny to me when the line says something entirely different. Maybe I have a sarcastic bias?