Positive‐negative asymmetry or ‘When the heart needs a reason’

Lewicka, Magdalena; Czapiński, Janusz; Peeters, Guido

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220502

Cited by 121 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While future research could further explore or might benefit from including a few negatively worded questions (e.g., the module objectives were unclear), a significant association of comment valence (positive or negative) with specific item ratings suggested the valence was consistently reflected. For example, comments provided by dissatisfied respondents tend to be more negative than those provided by satisfied respondents, consistent with the literature (e.g., Borg, 2005;Lewicka, et al, 1992;Poncheri, et al, 2008). Respondents who commented positively were nearly equivalent to those who wrote negative comments (ratio of 86:81), and were not significantly different from non-commenters in their ratings based on a two-tailed independent t-test, suggesting no respondent bias or confusion in the item ratings.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 78%

Leaving the Nest: The Evolution of CHRPP (the Course of Human Participant Protection) | Quitter le nid : l’évolution du cours d’éthique sur la protection des participants humains

Stockley

Balkwill²,

Hoessler³

2016

CJLT / RCAT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2008, Queen's University launched an online tutorial called CHRPP, the Course in Human Research Participant Protection, and published a paper about its purpose, design, and usability in Balkwill, Stevenson, Stockley, and Marlin (2009). CHRPP was originally created to raise awareness among research students about the federal policy regarding research ethics and to encourage ethical research practices. Self-assessments and interactive activities were built into the tutorial to help achieve our goals. Since the first publication CHRPP has been updated based on user feedback from a user satisfaction survey. The generally positive reception of this innovative tutorial led to it serving as the basis of a new national research ethics tutorial hosted by the Government of Canada's Panel on Research Ethics. This paper summarizes the evolution of CHRPP from a homegrown solution for one institution to an essential piece of Canada's national research ethics education program. RésuméEn 2008, l'Université Queen's a lancé un tutoriel en ligne nommé CHRPP (Course in Human Research Participant Protection, cours sur la protection des participants humains à la recherche) et publié un article sur son objectif, sa conception et sa convivialité dans Balkwill, Stevenson, Stockley et Marlin (2009). Le CHRPP a été créé pour sensibiliser les étudiants qui font de la recherche sur la politique fédérale relative à l'éthique de recherche et pour favoriser les pratiques éthiques de recherche. Des autoévaluations et des activités interactives ont été intégrées au tutoriel pour nous aider à atteindre nos objectifs. Depuis sa première publication, le CHRPP a été mis à jour en se basant sur la rétroaction tirée d'une enquête sur la satisfaction des utilisateurs. La réception généralement positive qu'a reçue ce tutoriel innovateur lui a valu de servir de base pour un nouveau tutoriel national en éthique de la recherche qu'héberge le Groupe CJLT/RCAT Vol. 42(1) Evaluating the First National Flight of the Online Ethics Course CHRPP 2 consultatif en éthique de la recherche du gouvernement du Canada. Cet article résume l'évolution du CHRPP qui, d'une solution maison pour un établissement est devenu une partie essentielle du programme national canadien d'éducation en éthique de la recherche.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 78%

Leaving the Nest: The Evolution of CHRPP (the Course of Human Participant Protection) | Quitter le nid : l’évolution du cours d’éthique sur la protection des participants humains

Stockley

Balkwill²,

Hoessler³

2016

CJLT / RCAT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lewicka, 1997; see also Lewicka, Czapinski, & Peeters, 1992). Specifically, different lines of research indicate that negative stimuli are detected more reliably (Dijksterhuis & Aarts, 2003), lead to more elaborate attributions (Bohner, Bless, Schwarz, & Strack, 1988), and generally demand more attention, thus entailing more elaborate processing (Baumeister et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth

Hilbig

2009

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lewicka, Czapinski, & Peeters (1992) highlight that the positivity bias (as opposed to the negativity bias) is most clearly observed in relatively neutral situations when evaluated targets are relatively novel or do not directly influence the individual during the process of evaluation. One reason why negative information gets more weight in interpersonal evaluative situations is because the cost of incorrectly assuming a bad person is good is higher than incorrectly assuming the reverse.…”

Section: Implications For Theorymentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Additionally, the positivity bias is most clearly observed in neutral situations where the target of evaluation is relatively novel and does not directly influence the observer during the process of evaluation (Lewicka et al, 1992).…”

Section: Implications For Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression formation in online peer production

Marlow

Dabbish

Herbsleb

2013

Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology increasingly enables new forms of distributed and ad-hoc online collaboration, among them a form of large-scale, loosely coordinated, mostly voluntary work known as peer production. Some peer production environments now connect social media functionality directly to collaborative work artifacts, which provides participants with detailed information about other contributors' work history, interests and interactions.Activity visibility provides informational signals individuals can use to make inferences about important characteristics of the people they interact with. However, the impact of the increased variety of information about collaborators and potential colleagues in a peer production setting is not well known.Understanding how people form impressions of other contributors can inform the design of peer production environments. This thesis investigates the process and outcomes of using activity traces for interpersonal impression formation in online peer production. Finally, I present an experiment investigating how the visual presentation of activity history influences impressions of contributors and evaluation of work. In the study I vary the amount of detail and quality of work shown in an activity history and measure the influence on impressions and evaluation of work products. I find that greater detail enhances valence and persistence of initial impressions and bias towards an unknown worker as well as effort expended to correct the worker's output on the task. 4My thesis advances our understanding of when and how social networking information and activity traces influence the process of making sense of unknown contributors' inherent qualities, and how this relates to work-related decision-making in peer production. The thesis also informs design principles for showcasing individuals' activity history in collaborative production sites.5

show abstract

Positive‐negative asymmetry or ‘When the heart needs a reason’

Cited by 121 publications

References 22 publications

Leaving the Nest: The Evolution of CHRPP (the Course of Human Participant Protection) | Quitter le nid : l’évolution du cours d’éthique sur la protection des participants humains

Leaving the Nest: The Evolution of CHRPP (the Course of Human Participant Protection) | Quitter le nid : l’évolution du cours d’éthique sur la protection des participants humains

Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth

Impression formation in online peer production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About