Skip to main content

Negativity in political perception

Political Behavior volume 4, pages 353–377 (1982)Cite this article

Abstract

The tendency for negative information to have more weight than equally extreme or equally likely positive information appears in a variety of cognitive processing tasks, but has rarely been documented empirically in politics. This paper provides evidence for two types of negativity effects in electoral behavior: negativity in the formation of impressions (of Humphrey and Nixon in 1968, of McGovern and Nixon in 1972, and of Carter and Reagan in 1980), and negativity as a consequence of impressions (in the 1974 and 1978 congressional elections). Both post hoc rationalization and the nonequivalence of the positive and negative information were examined and ruled out as artifactual explanations for these results. Discussion centered around two possible explanations for negativity, a cost-orientation hypothesis (which holds that people are more strongly motivated to avoid costs than to approach gains) and a figure-ground hypothesis (which holds that negative information stands out against a general positive background).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Anderson, N. H. (1965). “Averaging vs. Adding as a Stimulus Combination Rule in Person Perception.”Journal of Experimental Psychology 70: 394–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beigel, A. (1973). “Resistance to Change: Differential Effects of Favorable and Unfavorable Initial Communications.”British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 12: 153–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, H. S., and H. D. Price (1975). “Voter Response to Short-run Economic Conditions: The asymmetric Effect of Prosperity and Recession.”The American Political Science Review 69: 1240–1254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, R. A., and B. I. Page (1972). “The Assessment of Policy Voting.”The American Political Science Review 66: 450–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, and W. L. Rodgers (1976).The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (1966). “The Concept of a Normal Vote.” In A. Campbell et al. (eds),Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957).A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, V. S., and D. O. Sears (1977). “Does Everybody Like a Liker?”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13: 505–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D., and M. Zanna (1972). “Differential Weighting of Favorable and Unfavorable Attributes in Impressions of Personality.”Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 6: 204–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958).The Psychology of Interpersonal Reactions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky (1979). “Prospect Theory.”Econometrica 47, 263–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanouse, D. E., and L. R. Hanson, Jr. (1972). “Negativity in Evaluations.” In E. R. Jones et al. (eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., B. Gutek, R. L. Kahn, and E. Barton (1975).Bureaucratic Encounters. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Science Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernell, S. (1977). “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting.”The American Political Science Review 71: 44–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. (1978). “Political Person Perception: The asymmetrical Influence of Sentiment and Choice on Perceptions of Presidential Candidates.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38: 859–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R., S. T. Fiske, and R. G. Wagner (1980). “Presidents in the Popular Mind: Processes of Leadership Appraisal.” Unpublished manscript, Yale University.

  • Kinder, D. R., M. D. Peters, R. P. Abelson, and S. T. Fiske (1980). “Presidential Prototypes.”Political Behavior 2: 315–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenigs, R. J. (1974). “The Relative Influence of Positive and Negative Trait Adjectives on Impression Formation and Persistence.”Dissertation Abstracts International 34: (8A, part 2), 5312–5313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, N., and M. A. Wallach (1967). “Risk Taking as a Function of the Situation, the Person, and the Group.” InNew Directions in Psychology III. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R. (1979). “Negativity in Person Perception with Applications to Political Behavior.” Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.

  • Lubfer, M., M. Jones, and C. Quin (1972). “Group Risk Taking as a Function of Three Types of Monetary Incentives.”Journal of Personality 80:273–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H., M. P. Wattenberg, O. Malanchuk (1982). “Cognitive Representations of Candidate assessments.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver.

  • Mueller, J. E. (1973).War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. L., R. E. Reilly, and H. A. Taub (1961). “Differential Cost, Gain, and Relative Frequency Reward in Sequential Choice Situation.”Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 357–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, B. A., and P. S. Gallo (1965). “The Effects of Nominating Conventions, Elections, and Reference Group Identification upon the Perception of Political Figures.”Human Relations 8: 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rettig, S. and B. Pasamanick (1964). “Differential Judgements of Ethical Risk by Cheaters and Noncheaters.”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholog 69: 109–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, M., L. McClelland, and A. Shimkunas (1967). “Relative Influence of Positive and Negative Information in Impression Formation and Persistence.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6: 322–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O. (1969). “Political Behavior.” In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.),The Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 5. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O. (1982) “A Person Positivity Bias.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press.

  • Sears, D. O., and R. E. Whitney (1974). “Political Persuasion.” In I.D.S. Pool and W. Schramm (eds.),Handbook of Communication. New York: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P. (1969). “Differential Effects of Real Versus Hypothetical Payoffs on Choices among Gambles.”Journal of Experimental Psychology 80:434–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesser, A., and S. Rosen (1975). “The Reluctance to Transmit Bad News.” In I. L. Berkowitz (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 8. San Francisco: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, H. F., and J. G. Rusk (1970). “Dimensions of Candidate Evaluations.”The American Political Science Review 64: 1167–1185.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University, USA

    Richard R. Lau

Authors
  1. Richard R. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lau, R.R. Negativity in political perception. Polit Behav 4, 353–377 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986969

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986969

Keywords

  • Cognitive Processing
  • Processing Task
  • Positive Information
  • Electoral Behavior
  • Negative Information