Look on the bright side: Positivity bias modulates interference effects in the simon task.

Abstract

Negative faces are detected more quickly but categorized more slowly than positive faces.Using a Simon task, we examined stimulus-and response-related processes of this dissociation: if negative stimuli are both processed and responded to more quickly than positive ones, they should elicit reduced Simon effects. Conversely, if negative stimuli are processed more quickly but responded to more slowly, enlarged Simon effects should occur.Consistent with the first possibility, negative stimuli showed reduced Simon effects.Unexpectedly, this reduction transferred to neutral stimuli (arrows and pointing hands) requiring the same response as negative faces. This pattern suggests that spatial attention became biased toward the side associated with a positive-face response and away from the side associated with a negative-face response, demonstrating that, similar to higher level cognitive decision processes, even early attentional processes can be subject to a positivity bias ("Pollyanna effect").

Does repetitive negative thinking affect attention? Differential effects of worry and rumination on attention to emotional stimuli.

“…Interestingly, a bias toward positive stimuli when paired with neutral is very well replicated in the literature (e.g., Demeyer & De Raedt, 2013;Isaacowitz, 2005;Lobmaier & Perrett, 2011;Niedźwiecka & Tomalski, 2015;Pool, Brosch, Delplanque, & Sander, 2016;Raila et al, 2015;Schlaghecken, Blagrove, Mantantzis, Maylor, & Watson, 2017;Xing & Isaacowitz, 2006). The current data show this bias can be modulated by worry.…”

The Role of Emotional Valence for the Processing of Facial and Verbal Stimuli—Positivity or Negativity Bias?

“…When comparing the detection studies along such a schematic to naturalistic face-type dimension one may notice that all 10 of the studies which conclude in favor of a positivity bias used detailed naturalistic stimuli, while only 4 of the 11 studies which conclude in favor of a negativity bias used such stimuli (Fox and Damjanovic, 2006; Horstmann and Bauland, 2006; LoBue, 2009; Pinkham et al, 2010). The remaining 7 studies which conclude in favor of a negativity bias (White, 1996; Fox et al, 2000; Eastwood et al, 2001, 2003; Ohman et al, 2001; Fenske and Eastwood, 2003; Schlaghecken et al, 2017) all used schematic faces as stimuli. Thus, it seems that schematic faces are more likely to produce results consistent with a negativity bias, while studies using detailed more naturalistic facial stimuli are more likely to produce a positivity bias.…”

Did Human Reality Denial Breach the Evolutionary Psychological Barrier of Mortality Salience? A Theory that Can Explain Unusual Features of the Origin and Fate of Our Species

“…Perhaps one can suggest that MORT is to terror management theory (TMT) TMT as general relativity is to Newtonian A. Varki physics, the former being an improved model of reality, while the latter remaining useful for everyday predictions. 1 On the other hand, reality denial can be beneficial when it allows for optimism, perhaps explaining the evolutionary origins of the well-documented "optimism bias" in humans (Sharot, 2011a(Sharot, , 2011bSharot et al, 2007Sharot et al, , 2011 which manifests itself in many human characteristics, such as the "Pollyanna hypothesis" (Iliev, Hoover, Dehghani, & Axelrod, 2016;Schlaghecken, Blagrove, Mantantzis, Maylor, & Watson, 2017) which addresses the apparent universal positivity bias of human language. It can also explain the human propensity for risk-taking and thrill-seeking behavior.…”