Outlook: gloomy

by 1800 1,800 words
  • Read later or Kindle
    • KindleKindle

Outlook: gloomy

Nothing to smile about; Buster Keaton and actress Virginia Fox c. 1920. Photo by Springer Collection/Corbis

Humans are wired for bad news, angry faces and sad memories. Is this negativity bias useful or something to overcome?

Jacob Burak is the founder of Alaxon, a digital magazine about culture, art and popular science, where he writes regularly. His latest book is How to Find a Black Cat in a Dark Room (2013). He lives in Tel Aviv.

1800 1,800 words
  • Read later
    • KindleKindle

I have good news and bad news. Which would you like first? If it’s bad news, you’re in good company – that’s what most people pick. But why?

Negative events affect us more than positive ones. We remember them more vividly and they play a larger role in shaping our lives. Farewells, accidents, bad parenting, financial losses and even a random snide comment take up most of our psychic space, leaving little room for compliments or pleasant experiences to help us along life’s challenging path. The staggering human ability to adapt ensures that joy over a salary hike will abate within months, leaving only a benchmark for future raises. We feel pain, but not the absence of it.

Hundreds of scientific studies from around the world confirm our negativity bias: while a good day has no lasting effect on the following day, a bad day carries over. We process negative data faster and more thoroughly than positive data, and they affect us longer. Socially, we invest more in avoiding a bad reputation than in building a good one. Emotionally, we go to greater lengths to avoid a bad mood than to experience a good one. Pessimists tend to assess their health more accurately than optimists. In our era of political correctness, negative remarks stand out and seem more authentic. People – even babies as young as six months old – are quick to spot an angry face in a crowd, but slower to pick out a happy one; in fact, no matter how many smiles we see in that crowd, we will always spot the angry face first.

The machinery by which we recognise facial emotion, located in a brain region called the amygdala, reflects our nature as a whole: two-thirds of neurons in the amygdala are geared toward bad news, immediately responding and storing it in our long-term memory, points out neuropsychologist Rick Hanson, Senior Fellow of the Greater Good Science Center at University of California, Berkeley. This is what causes the ‘fight or flight’ reflex – a survival instinct based on our ability to use memory to quickly assess threats. Good news, by comparison, takes 12 whole seconds to travel from temporary to long-term memory. Our ancient ancestors were better off jumping away from every stick that looked like a snake than carefully examining it before deciding what to do.

Daily Weekly

Our gloomy bent finds its way into spoken language, with almost two thirds of English words conveying the negative side of things. In the vocabulary we use to describe people, this figure rises to a staggering 74 per cent. And English is not alone. Aside from Dutch, all other languages lean toward the bleak.

We’re so attuned to negativity that it penetrates our dreams. The late American psychologist Calvin Hall, who analysed thousands of dreams over more than 40 years, found the most common emotion to be anxiety, with negative feelings (embarrassment, missing a flight, threats of violence) much more frequent than positive ones. A study from 1988 found that, among residents of developed countries, American men have the highest rate of aggressive dreams, reported by 50 per cent, as opposed to 32 per cent of Dutch men – apparently a compulsively positive group.

One of the first researchers to explore our negative slant was the Princeton psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize, and best known for pioneering the field of behavioural economics. In 1983, Kahneman coined the term ‘loss aversion’ to describe his finding that we mourn loss more than we enjoy benefit. The upset felt after losing money is always greater than the happiness felt after gaining the same sum.

Even brief contact with a cockroach will usually render a delicious meal inedible

The psychologist Roy Baumeister, now professor at Florida State University, has expanded on the concept. ‘Centuries of literary efforts and religious thought have depicted human life in terms of a struggle between good and bad forces,’ he wrote in 2001. ‘At the metaphysical level, evil gods or devils are the opponents of the divine forces of creation and harmony. At the individual level, temptation and destructive instincts battle against strivings for virtue, altruism, and fulfilment. “Good” and “bad” are among the first words and concepts learnt by children (and even by house pets).’ After reviewing hundreds of published papers, Baumeister and team reported that Kahneman’s find extended to every realm of life – love, work, family, learning, social networking and more. ‘Bad is stronger than good,’ they declared in their seminal, eponymous paper.

Following fast on the heels of the Baumeister paper, the psychologists Paul Rozin and Edward Royzman of the University of Pennsylvania invoked the term ‘negativity bias’ to reflect their finding that negative events are especially contagious. The Penn researchers give the example of brief contact with a cockroach, which ‘will usually render a delicious meal inedible’, as they say in a 2001 paper. ‘The inverse phenomenon – rendering a pile of cockroaches on a platter edible by contact with one’s favourite food – is unheard of. More modestly, consider a dish of a food that you are inclined to dislike: lima beans, fish, or whatever. What could you touch to that food to make it desirable to eat – that is, what is the anti-cockroach? Nothing!’ When it comes to something negative, minimal contact is all that’s required to pass on the essence, they argue.

Of all the cognitive biases, the negative bias might have the most influence over our lives. Yet times have changed. No longer are we roaming the savannah, braving the harsh retribution of nature and a life on the move. The instinct that protected us through most of the years of our evolution is now often a drag – threatening our intimate relationships and destabilising our teams at work.

It was the University of Washington psychologist John Gottman, an expert on marital stability, who showed how eviscerating our dark side could be. In 1992, Gottman found a formula to predict divorce with an accuracy rate of more than 90 per cent by spending only 15 minutes with a newly-wed couple. He spent the time evaluating the ratio of positive to negative expressions exchanged between the partners, including gestures and body language. Gottman later reported that couples needed a ‘magic ratio’ of at least five positive expressions for each negative one if a relationship was to survive. So, if you have just finished nagging your partner over housework, be sure to praise him five times very soon. Couples who went on to get divorced had four negative comments to three positive ones. Sickeningly harmonious couples displayed a ratio of about 20:1 – a boon to the relationship but perhaps not so helpful for the partner needing honest help navigating the world.

Other researchers applied these findings to the world of business. The Chilean psychologist Marcial Losada, for instance, studied 60 management teams at a large information-processing company. In the most effective groups, employees were praised six times for every time they were put down. In especially low-performing groups, there were almost three negative remarks to every positive one.

Losada’s controversial ‘critical positivity ratio’, devised with psychologist Barbara Fredrickson of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and based on complex mathematics, aimed to serve up the perfect formula of 3-6:1. In other words, hearing praise between three and six times as often as criticism, the researchers said, sustained employee satisfaction, success in love, and most other measures of a flourishing, happy life. The paper with the formula, entitled ‘Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing’, was published by the respected journal American Psychologist in 2005.

International disputes are not going to be resolved by positive thinking without a huge dose of realism as well

Achieving the critical ratio soon became a major part of the toolkit developed by positive psychology, a recent sub-discipline of psychology focused on enhancing positive measures such as happiness and resilience instead of treating negatives like disorders of the mind. Yet the ratio provoked pushback, starting with Nicholas Brown, a Masters student in psychology at the University of East London, who thought the mathematics was bunk. Brown approached the mathematician Alan Sokal, of New York University and the University of London, who helped him dismantle the formula in a paper called ‘The Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking: The Critical Positivity Ratio’ (2013). The Fredrikson-Losada paper has since been partially withdrawn – and Fredickson has disavowed the work in full.

Ultimately, there might be no way to extinguish the negative bias of our minds. Unable to rise above this negativity bias with praise, affirmations, magic formulas and the like, it might be time to embrace the advantage that our negative capability confers – most especially, the ability to see reality straight and, so, to adjust course and survive. In fact, studies show that depressed people may be sadder, but they are also wiser, to evoke the famous words of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. This 'depressive realism' gives the forlorn a more accurate perception of reality, especially in terms of their own place in the world and their ability to influence events.

When it comes to resolving conflicts on the world stage, the negativity bias must be part of the mix. International disputes are not going to be resolved by positive thinking without a huge dose of realism as well. In the end, we need both perspectives to help us share resources, negotiate peace, and get along. In an article published this June in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, a team led by University of Nebraska-Lincoln political scientist John Hibbing argue that differences between conservatives and liberals can be explained, in part, by their psychological and physiological reactions to negatives in the environment. Compared with liberals, they say, ‘conservatives tend to register greater physiological responses to negative stimuli and also to devote more psychological resources to them’. That might explain why supporters of tradition and stability are so often pitted against supporters of reform, and why the tug-of-war between the two -the middle ground- is often where we end up.

Last November, Daniel Kahneman gave an interview in Hebrew to the New Israel Fund to mark International Human Rights Day. In it, he addressed the influence that the negativity bias might have on the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. He claimed that the bias encourages hawkish views (which usually emphasise risk or immediate loss) over dovish proposals (which emphasise the chance of future benefits). The best leaders, he suggested, would offer a vision where ‘future gains’ were great enough to compensate for the risks involved in venturing peace – yet without a magic formula, on both sides of the line, negativity prevailed.

Read more essays on cognition & intelligence, neuroscience and wellbeing


  • peter gluck

    Dear Friends-
    Generally speaking negativity is both necessarry and good. For Problem Solving it is simply vital See please my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2015
    and many writings on my personal blog EGO OUT


  • Roy Niles

    Negativity is not exactly the right term as it indicates we expect the negative things to happen more often than the positive. More accurately, the negative things are the things that we see as dangerous and worthy of distrust. We can learn to appropriately distrust and still maintain a positive attitude toward the things that we've also learned deserve a larger degree of trust than distrust. And like the previous commenter, I wrote an essay sized book about it. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008OMUDBW

  • tetriminos

    ironically, hearing about other peoples' good news makes me feel left out, sometimes. so i like to hear about peoples' problems, to know i'm not the only one with them, and to give mine context on a kind of scale

  • T_Rat

    The survival imperative suggests that remembering negative experiences is more essential than positive ones. This may suggest the stronger influences of negative messages. And if these negative messages are contrary to ego centered impulses, their power is further magnified by that ego. The solution, to see the positive in favor or the negative is to let go of the ego and focus on the moment. Practice makes it, eventually, automatic.

  • Hominid

    Fear is the primary motivator for the vast majority of sapiens.

  • Roy Niles

    We are motivated to achieve positive goals. Fear is a deterrent. If it was a motivator we would not survive.

  • Eustace Eater

    A rational person recognizes that no achievement lasts, and that all lives end in death. "Negativity" is the recognition of this fact. People in general recognize this truth from an early age, and hence the predominance of "negative thinking". The ownership of objects, including our own lives, is what makes us sad, because we know that we can't keep them forever. The solution is to fully accept the impermanence of life and live joyously in spite of it. The more attached we are, the more we suffer psychologically.

    • Ace Allen

      I'm pretty sure that goes well beyond negativity and goes straight to nihilism.

  • Arnie Lerma

    This 'negativity bias' is a short sighted view of a symptom, when one should be addressing the feedback loops of the entire system. It is nothing more than a symptom of adverse prior conditioning upon the evolving minds of children.

  • morecotwo

    So biast. LIBERALS are hard wired for it. Not human beings. Stalin, Mao, ectera, ectera. When someone want to kill you yeah, it's a fkn bummer.

  • Dracovert

    This is an extremely important article.

    Psychopaths typically have damaged amygdala, and have no conscience, and
    therefore have no internal restrictions on their behaviors. Casey Anthony
    killed her daughter, John Wayne Gacy killed thirty-three young men, Jeff
    Skilling at Enron created the greatest corporate fraud case in history, and
    Stalin killed tens of millions of Russians. Each of these characters
    was professionally evaluated as psychopathic by competent psychologist
    observers. One percent of the population is psychopathic, destroying families,
    perpetrating frauds, creating financial disasters, and starting wars.

    Psychopaths are incessantly optimistic, though this may not adequately describe their condition. Psychopaths create an artificial charisma and are looked upon
    favorably by many people until disaster results. Learning to recognize
    psychopaths before they create disasters is imperative.

    Psychopaths in Germany and Japan were forcibly terminated
    in 1945 and Germany and Japan then became responsible, productive states.
    The two remaining psychopathic systems are Marxism and militant Islam.
    When a psychopathic mindset is established, individual psychopaths will recur
    over decades or centuries, as is the case in the world of militant Islam.

    Besides the militant Islamist and the conventional Marxist states, the two prominent
    psychopaths now active in the world are Vladimir Putin, devoted to
    re-establishing the Russian empire, and Barack Hussein Obama, that strange
    amalgam of militant Islam and Marxism, devoted to reducing the role of the American
    Republic in the world.

    • InStride247

      I enjoyed your description of psychopathy, which was then capped by your personal slam of Obama and fervent love of the American Republic. What is this militant Republic ideal you've devoted yourself to? Free-reign capitalism bolstered by hypocritical and inconsistent Christian ideals, all in the name of the free and the brave. IMHO, just another sequestered empire constructed on competing values of patriotism and individuality. But I suppose only a psychopath would dream of world order, global commerce and cooperation that knows no nationalist protectionism. The self-fulfilling holy books have all but rendered that impossible. I suppose rooting for 'Merica is the only option left.

      • Dracovert

        "Slam of Obama."

        If you are familiar with Dr. Robert Hare's Psychopathy Check List, the world standard for things psychopathic, you would find that Obama scores high on the PCL:

        Glibness/superficial charm

        Grandiose sense of self-worth

        Pathological lying


        Parasitic lifestyle


        Juvenile delinquency

        Etc., etc., etc.

        So, I have not slammed anyone; every thing I have said is straight out of the book.

        "Free-reign capitalism."

        Free-reign capitalism is what RINOs practice, and RINOS have compromised away our republican (small r) values by not standing up to the psychopathic Democrats. I would describe the capitalism ideal as "rule-of-law" capitalism. For all its faults, capitalism is by far the most productive and equitable.

        "Hypocritical and inconsistent Christian ideals."
        All have fallen and come short of the glory of the Lord, but whose ideals would you prefer? The Italian Mafia? The Russian Mafia? The Chicago thugocracy?
        "Militant Republic ideal."
        The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

        • Serenity Now!

          Are you high? Parasitic lifestyle? Juvenile delinquency? Irresponsibility? Who the hell are you talking about, because it is not Barack Obama. Perhaps you should read his book Dreams of My Father, perhaps you should read the remarks of his friends, neighbors, supporters etc. Maybe should get Serious and not spout crazy stuff you read on Stormfront.

        • babby660

          Son, you have been brainwashed by Tea Party rhetoric, which I believe is based on racism and is truly psychopathic. There is a reason people elected this man to office twice!

          I'll grant that he has not fulfilled as many of my wishes as I would have liked & I suppose many other supporters feel the same way, but in many (not all) cases, political realities are the reason.

          The continued antipathy of congressional Republicans is a large stumbling block. They are doing their damndest to make his presidency an unsuccessful one, to the detriment of the entire country.

          Maybe it's time the entire country tried to focus on the positive & encourage COMPROMISE. Mr. Obama bent over backwards in his first term to compromise with the GOP & all he got was a kick in the pants!

          Come on, GOP, try to accomplish something positive! Forget about party interests & focus on the good of the country.

  • Mlucid

    That's crap. If I get a demotion or ragging at work, yeah, it sticks with me. But not to do a better job so much as to get my butt away from a negative boss. I work hard and expect success and whatever failures I engage are almost never about incompetence, but about miscalculation under difficult circumstance. The bosses I choose to work with pretty much know this and the ones I don't, I either ignore them and do what I would have anyway or find another employer (myself now). Joy drives my live no matter how bad bad days feel. And I'm not the only one by a loooooong shot.

  • Charles

    There's nothing surprising here. Recognizing threats and avoiding them enabled our distant ancestors to survive and reproduce. Being too happy to look around carefully and avoid threats led others to their deaths, and they did not reproduce to the same extent. We are mostly descendents of the gloomy pessimists, and we are therefore naturally gloomy pessimists ourselves.

  • ApathyNihilism

    Interesting topic, but I found this article confusing.

    "Negativity bias" means an inaccurate prejudice towards negativity. However, if, as the article claims, pessimists are actually more realistic, then is it no the optimists who actually have a "positivity bias"?

  • ApathyNihilism

    Also: Why was the discredited research even included in this article?

  • A Kaleberg

    If you get negative news, you have to figure out whether there is something you can do to mitigate it, and if not, how to best handle it. If you get positive news, you might consider how to best take advantage of it, but even if you don't, you're done. It's no surprise that people want the bad news first.

  • http://www.RepliCounts.org/ RepliCounts

    Decades ago there was an early TV drama about computer hackers. Entertainment experts were skeptical, because they had found that in similar dramas, the leading character had to have the power of life and death: doctors, cops, national leaders yes, computer programmers no. The show did appear, but did not last long.

    Bad stuff often can determine life or death; good stuff seldom can. It's only natural that we pay more attention to the former.

    John James, ideal-lab.me

  • StarkEx

    I think it's important to both be optimistic and positive, while also recognizing risks and being able to criticize. A bit of negativity is very useful to give weight to critical points and concerns, as this article suggests.

    Can't dwell on negativity though, because that drives people away and can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. (It could be argued that the negativity of people is realistic because it actually contributes to realizing the reality it predicts.) To be future- and solution-oriented, we need positive attitudes communication that signal shared goodwill and confidence.