Talk:Negativity bias

Suggestions for Improvement

Just a few thoughts to help with the editing of this article. It seems the lead section is too extensive. It should be summarized more succinctly. Then, the more detailed explanation should also be moved and expanded on in the main article. The structure of the article could also be improved to make it more user friendly and accessible. The article also needs more varied sources and clearer citation, as some of the current information listed is not cited or relies mainly on other wiki articles for information. Also, the article could be improved by expanding on the topic in a clear way overall. Discussions on the various theories, famous research, or development of this idea would be useful. The discussion on positive effects, while related and useful, currently seems to be the main body of the article. Jessicalamb (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead section is understandable and fairly fluent, although I find it may be best to add a few more examples on how humans in the past used negativity bias to avoid hazardous situations and seek pleasurable outcomes. Dealing with the structure of the article, it would be best to save the heading "recent developments" for a latter portion of your article, and instead switch it with "in the brain", and place recent developments after your "examples heading. This article is balanced very well, to the point I do not see much work needing to be done to it except for minor tweaks to certain particulars. The article coverage is excellent and the article's resources, for the most part, are good enough. I would encourage, however, to add in particulars that come from reputable journal articles that have been published rather than the internet sources. Josh Everett 23:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead is a clear sentence that is easy for someone to understand who has no previous knowledge on the subject. Also I might say that the "recent developments" and "the brain" section could be switched. Also, one minor detail in the recent development section, in one of our references in cognition the author said the names of researchers are not to be in the beginning of the paragraph. The sections need to be more about the actual study being done. Of course this is a very minor thing. Also the explanation section feels a little stange, but I am not really sure how to make it better. The examples are great and really show life applications but maybe that section needs to be the last with a few more examples added on. These are all just suggestions but it seems you have a pretty good article it just needs some touch ups. Everything seems to be well balanced with neutral coverage. Maybe a few more sources could be added but the ones you have seem good. POYNOR (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

As far as your sources, I think you may need a few more scholarly articles to support the information. Most of the time I felt that there was a lot of the same information repeated just in a different way. I real However, I do believe that the leading section is understandable and clear. There is also a clear structure throughout the article, but the heading and subheadings in the Explanations section still confuses me. I also believe that the article is balanced, without one section taking too much importance and focus away from others. There is also neutral coverage within the article as far as I can see. However, I have some general suggestions about the word choices, and grammar throughout the article. They are just suggestions so no need to take all of them into consideration, but I believe they could make this article much stronger.

In the history section I would combine the sentences that begin “The negativity..” and “As humans.” I would do this by saying, “The negativity bias helps humans react to stimuli that make us feel threatened because as humans we want to approach awards and avoid hazards.” This would create more of a flow throughout the paragraph instead of short choppy sentences.

In recent developments section the first bullet point should reword “three-month olds” to “three-month old babies” because without babies it sounds strange.

In the brain section the sentence starting with the left hemisphere; needs to say this instead. “The left hemisphere specialized for articulate language and positive experiences, while the right hemisphere is focused on negative experiences.” Also, the sentence that starts “We remember more after we” should say this instead because there is no need for a semicolon. It should say, “We remember an experience more if we hear disapproving or disappointing new after the experience takes place which shows how the brain processes criticism.” The sentence afterwards should read, “The brain also produces an effective management tool for criticism called the criticism sandwich. This form of criticism is when you offer someone some words of praise, discuss critical issues, and then add some more words of praise afterwards.”

In the explanation section there are no references or citations for the information placed there. Is it only the editor’s words or did they get all of these explanations of negativity bias from articles? Also, I’m kind of confused at what all of the bold faced sections are explaining? Are they all referring to how negativity bias works, or something different?

In the examples section on the second bullet, you should change the sentence beginning “since the brain weights negative” and change “weights” to “weighs.”

In the “Is Bad Stronger than Good?” section, the sentence beginning with “He also found that” should read “He also found that negative events have longer lasting effects on emotions than positive events do.” This change is mainly because the word “stickier” doesn’t sound educated. When it continues into the next paragraph it should read “The tendency of negative event having a stronger effect than good reflects into most aspects of human existence.” Also, there should be different words used for the sentences that start “Furthermore” and “Additionally” because they are redundant. The sentence that begins “These are simply” should read “These are simple examples of negativity that has a greater influence on humans everyday life rather than positive events/situation, and will play into most situations that a person faces throughout his lifetime. (HatchMcGatch (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC))

I would refrain from using a Recent Developments section because that is going to be out of date really quickly. The information presented in that section is good, I just think it needs a different heading (and more detailed information instead of quick snippets). I think word choice could be better, for example, not using "looked at" so much. Some of the headings do not help flow - for example, "In the brain" - what does that mean? Definitely need many more citations. Also consider adding links to wiki pages on the explanations section. Examples section should be moved up. Not sure why there is a separate section for the book. I think your information is there (although you need to expand on it), but you need to work on the details - better organization, wording, citing, etc. 69.160.138.33 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)dguyla

Image removal

I removed the two first images due to the fact that both appeared to be made in MSPaint, and appeared exceptionally out-of-place. They were terribly low-quality. ~ PonyToast...§ 20:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Negativity bias/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Some quick comments to get you started:

• the lead is too short to adequately summarize the article's contents (see WP:Lead)
• the "Explanations" section is not adequately referenced, and needs more inline citations
• the brain scan image needs to be fixed, replaced, or removed
• there's much more; I'll review in detail once these are fixed.

No response from the nominator (or recent edits), so I'm closing this review. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This theory is bullshit

Ok, so it works for some people but not everyone. I have a positive bias towards the past - my recent high school years appear more distant as I was depressed in them and my earlier childhood memories appear closer in time to me. 137.224.228.17 (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Major edits coming soon

Hello! Just as a heads up, I'm currently working on revamping this article as part of a course assignment.Cmiddlebrooks (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Be sure to make your students familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:MOS), otherwise the article may be worse off. This includes referencing, in particular in-line references: these should not be written out like (..., date), but use <ref>normal APA reference-list entry</ref>. --JorisvS (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the introductory section. If there aren't any problems, I'll start uploading more edits shortly!Cmiddlebrooks (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm attempting to add the "Educational assignment" tag to my revisions, but I can't seem to get it to show up! Help?? Also, I've essentially rewritten the article, I hope the changes I made are acceptable! If I've done anything with respect to consistent formatting errors, etc., please let me know and I'll make the appropriate changes!Cmiddlebrooks (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean add that to your edit summaries? --JorisvS (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean to the article. The article consists entirely of my writing now, so I thought it was should have a warning at the top that the article was completed as part of an educational assignment.Cmiddlebrooks (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is considered as "trustworthy" as any other in its assessment class. If your editing meets Wikipedia's five pillars then we should be fine. If another editor takes issue with your edits you'll hear from them eventually. But no, banner templates are meant to identify content issues; the fact that a student wrote the material isn't an issue. Think about that the next time you use Wikipedia for background research. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Only observed in humans?

I'm surprised there's nothing in the article about negativity bias in other creatures besides humans. Is that because there's nothing on it in the literature?

From an evolutionary standpoint, given the choice of paying attention to a predator (negative) and prey (positive) encountered at the same time, surely negativity bias would have much stronger survival value than positivity bias. "Predator" generalizes to anything hazardous, e.g. any extremely hazardous prey-catching maneuver like jumping over a crevasse should demand closer attention than the prey itself.

If there's nothing on this in the literature it ought to make a terrific thesis topic for a student of evolutionary biology. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Control and time as factors?

The comment above on depression prompts two questions. Is negativity bias stronger for events over which one has some control? And is it stronger for future than past events?

These aren't entirely independent. Past mistakes are surely worth remembering to avoid repeating them, but it would seem natural to prefer to forget past negative experiences perceived as being beyond one's control such as common childhood diseases, colds, bouts of depression, surgery, etc. Accidents are in between: rather than remembering specific accidents the more useful take-away would be safer behavior aimed at reducing their incidence.

If there's anything reliable in the literature on either of these factors it might be worth adding to the article. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from Negativity effect

Since the article was talking about the same subject, I redirected it here. This was the last revision before the redirect creation. Cheers −−Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Who coined this term?

It would be a nice detail to add. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)