When Things Are Bad and Then Good Then Bad Again
Why can't we pull our attending away from a traffic accident or finish watching news almost the latest viral outbreak? Why are we waylaid by criticism or unable to get past a small-scale snub from our best friend?
That's our negativity bias. We humans have a propensity to requite more weight in our minds to things that go incorrect than to things that become right—so much so that just one negative event can hijack our minds in ways that can be detrimental to our work, relationships, health, and happiness.
Overcoming our negativity bias is non easy to do. Only a new book, The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How Nosotros Tin Rule Information technology, coauthored by social psychologist Roy Baumeister and New York Times writer John Tierney, inspires hope. The book not only covers the fascinating science behind this stubborn bias, but also gives readers practical tips to work around information technology in effective—and sometimes counterintuitive—ways. If we know that "bad" is stronger than "good," the authors debate, nosotros tin apply that noesis to improve not only our ain lives, but society at large.
Recently, I spoke with the authors about their book and what we can learn from information technology. Below is an edited version of our interview.
Jill Suttie: Why did yous want to write about the ability of the negativity bias?
Roy Baumeister: To me, it was fascinating, considering it's ane of the most basic psychological principles and seems to be true everywhere. It's a key fact about how the mind works. But there are also enough of practical applications in everyday life that people need to understand—how it works in their relationships, in their reactions to political and religious speakers, and then on. A mind is decumbent to overreact to negative things relative to positive things; then people tin employ this to manipulate us, or nosotros tin can employ this to manipulate other people. If we understand this, we can prevent some of the negative effects and improve the quality of our social life.
JS: What was 1 of the most surprising findings from the research on negativity bias?
John Tierney: There are lots of little surprising things to me—like the fact that yous get near no credit for doing more than you lot promised to do, for going beyond and doing extra, but you get penalized severely for what you don't exercise.
Researchers did experiments where students were given tickets past a ticket broker, and if the seats were better than expected, the students didn't express any gratitude; but they were very upset if the seats were worse. In another experiment, someone came in to help participants practise a job that involved solving puzzles, and if that person did fifty percent more than promised, participants gave him the same rating as if he'd just done the basic job. If he cruel short, they really faulted him. Nosotros're very upset when someone doesn't fulfill a promise, but if they do extra, nosotros're not grateful plenty for information technology.
RB: If I had to pick one finding, in particular, it would be that people learn more and faster from punishment and advantage. I've heard educators say that we shouldn't criticize students or shouldn't give bad marks; but giving both advantage and penalty—both praise and criticism—is best, for informational purposes. If you have to pick but one, the negative feedback stimulates learning faster than the positive. That was the biggest surprise to me.
For example, say you give children a jar, and, in one condition, every time they got a right respond, they'd get a marble to put in a jar that they could go on. In the other condition, the jar was full of marbles, and every time they got one incorrect, they'd lose a marble. It's the same contingency, ane marble per answer. Simply the kids learned faster when they were losing marbles than gaining marbles.
There was also a overnice field study with teachers, where they were given a bonus if enough of their kids improved or reached grade-level-appropriate scores at the terminate of the year. To make it interesting, half the teachers got the bonus in advance—but if their students didn't brand it, they'd have to pay it back. The others were told they would get their bonus at the finish of the twelvemonth if students avant-garde. The issue? Students learn better when the teacher might be punished by having money taken abroad, instead of rewarded by getting coin in the end.
JS: In your volume, you refer to the "Negative Golden Rule." Can you explain what that is and why it's of import in relationships?
RB: Well, the standard Golden Rule that we learned as a child is "Do unto others as y'all want them to do unto yous." But given that bad is stronger than skilful, the priority should be "Do non do unto others what you do non desire done unto you." Information technology'due south almost focusing on eliminating the negative rather than cultivating the positive. Both are good, but eliminating the negative should get priority.
There's arable evidence from multiple sources that relationships are far more strongly affected by negative things than positive things. I sometimes ask my students, "Why do you think someone should marry you? Why would you be a great married man or wife?" They list all the positive things that they practise—being a practiced listener, provider, good in bed, or whatever—that they retrieve volition make the relationship a success.
But what'south more than important is to not do the bad things—tin can y'all hold your tongue when you're angry or refrain from saying that something is his or her fault; or, when the family unit budget is stretched, tin can I refrain from an impulsive splurge? Negative things thing way more than positive things; so rather than reciprocating when your partner is being hard or unpleasant, it'due south especially of import for you to ride it out and be positive and not fall into the trap of turning negative yourself.
JS: Is there a proficient way to provide criticism, given how much we hate receiving information technology?
JT: I of the large mistakes people accept learned is that, when giving criticism, you lot should start off saying a lot of good things virtually the other person, then throw in some criticism, and wrap it upwardly with some nice words. Only nearly people would rather just get the bad news out of the way. Besides, one time you requite people the bad news, they respond so strongly to criticism that the brain basically forgets the start part—people will walk out of the evaluation focusing on that criticism, with all the expert stuff forgotten.
It'southward better to requite the bad news early; so the good news tin can sink in after that. People accept got to hear the criticism to know what the problem is, but then y'all can tell them what they're proficient at and allow them know how they tin improve.
JS: When it comes to news and media, you write that we tend to focus more immediately on the negative news, just we're more than likely to share positive news with others. What'south the reason for this, and how should information technology guide our consumption of the news?
JT: This is something that interested me in my media career—just seeing how eagerly we journalists will plow annihilation into bad news. And so many things are going right in the world, and yet journalists can take what's basically a good news trend and find one person doing desperately and focus on that. The reason for this is probably that mass media aims at a mass audition, and the things that affect everyone tend to be negative—nosotros're all afraid of dying; we're all agape of existence hurt. Focusing on those shared concerns is the easiest fashion to reach a mass audience.
It means we all need to work on going on a "depression-bad" diet—basically, not allowing yourself to constantly lookout mass media news. When there's a terrible consequence—a school shooting or a terrorist assault—don't but wallow in the coverage. These are awful events, only they're too pretty isolated events.
Social media often gets a bad rap, only, in fact, people on social media tend to share stories that are more than positive than mass media. That'southward considering the positive things nosotros're interested in—our hobbies, our cultural interests, the books we read—are more idiosyncratic. If you go on Facebook or you get on social media, you'll detect all these wonderful groups that are simply devoted to shared passions—for certain authors, certain branches of science, Civil War history. Curating your news feed then that you're not seeing so many negative stories tin exist good.
JS: You mentioned manipulation earlier. Practice you ever worry that helping people understand the ability of the negativity bias could lead them to misuse it in a way?
JT: I practise think that the negativity effect is used for bad purposes all the time. The "merchants of bad," as we call them—in the media and politics and advertising—are continually scaring us and they don't need our book to figure this out. Market research shows that it's the way to become people's attention. Then, in that sense, I don't recall we're going to exist giving people a weapon they're not already using.
We're hoping that people who swallow the news or hear politicians trying to scare them, though, volition realize how they're being manipulated and start using their rational brain to overcome their negativity bias. Agreement how it works can help people see that what they hear or read is not necessarily an accurate view of the situation or even representative, and they're just overreacting to the bad.
JS: Most people recollect that being a "Pollyanna" is a pejorative. But y'all really make a instance that there's something to be said for existence a footling chip more Pollyannaish. Why?
RB: OK, the original Pollyanna movie was non a critical success. Simply the thought of taking a positive mental attitude is very appealing, which is probably why it was a commercial success.
The mind evolved to overreact to negative things and so, to compensate for that, information technology's adept to take a moment to finish and consider the positive side. You don't have to be as farthermost equally the Pollyanna character. Merely, in full general, the indicators of homo well-beingness are all moving up—life is getting better and is really good in many ways, despite the constant predictions of doom. And so simply to be authentic in how you see the earth, you need to put a flake of a correction on the negativity bias.
Virtually of the enquiry shows that bad things accept about two, 3, or four times every bit much affect as skillful things. If you want to take a practiced human relationship, become for at least a five-to-one ratio of practiced things to bad things. I've heard people say, "Oh, I did this to badger my married woman or husband; I'd better do something nice to get in upward to him or her." Only one nice thing doesn't make up for one bad thing—y'all've got to practise four things simply to get dorsum to fifty-fifty.
JS: You make a case for using rational thought to overcome the negativity bias. What about the role of cultivating positive emotions? Is that useful, too?
JT: Yes! We recommended keeping a gratitude diary in the volume, for example. Merely that's still a case of using your rational brain—you make up one's mind yous're going to keep a diary because the research shows that this will assistance you, thinking virtually the good things in your life. And that does indeed produce a wonderful emotional response; it's one of the best means to lift your spirits. And so, in that sense, yous're using your rational brain to bring out those expert emotions.
JS: What lesson practice yous promise most people will take away from your book?
RB: Despite the title, we want information technology to exist a positive, upbeat volume. We want people to recognize that things are virtually never equally bad as they're thinking and hearing and fearing. Nosotros desire people to understand that the heed naturally leans toward noticing and attending to and processing the negative stuff, only that will exist an overreaction. And then, information technology'southward important to take some time and residuum it out and recognize the immense amount of proficient that is all around us. Like I sometimes say, I think anyone born in America afterward the center of the 20th century should never complain nigh anything. Compared to most other places in the history of the world, it's really like winning the lottery.
JT: The basic message of our book is that bad is stronger than adept, but proficient can prevail. Nosotros finish the volume very optimistically considering nosotros recollect that life has gotten so much improve for the average person in the earth in the last three centuries. It's astonishing—we're the luckiest people in history to be live at present. And things merely keep getting improve.
Nosotros're hopeful that as nosotros understand our inner nature, this negativity effect, we tin utilise our rational brain to override that when information technology gets in our style and can use it for positive purposes. The more we tin get our rational brain involved in overriding these gut reactions, the more things will keep getting better. And we think people tin become happier, too.
Source: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_overcome_your_brains_fixation_on_bad_things
0 Response to "When Things Are Bad and Then Good Then Bad Again"
Enviar um comentário