Valence Asymmetry in Cognition - A Formal Account

Valence asymmetries - the tendency for negative stimuli to elicit more processing effort than positive stimuli - have been widely observed but remain theoretically contested. To advance this debate, we present a formalized account that integrates two major explanatory perspectives: the intrapsychic (or phylogenetic), and the ecological (or ontogenetic) approach. We introduce a concise set of parameters to specify the key concepts and analyze the argumentative structure of each perspective. This yields three major insights: a) parts of the established terminology are misleading and we suggest using more informative labels such as valence-driven and distinctiveness-driven instead, b) it is essential to specify how exactly “good” and “bad” stimuli are distinguished from one another, and c) some explanations rely on implicit yet critical assumptions such as the probability of having contact with stimuli. Clarifying these theoretical foundations provides a framework for conducting informative empirical tests in future research.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-08-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qz2rt_v4
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Cognitive Computing and Networks
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.48
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Valence Asymmetry in Cognition - A Formal Account

Hans Alves, Daniel Leising, Anne Wiedenroth, Christian Unkelbach et al.
1 citations
Cognitive Computing and Networks
2.48
article

Valence Asymmetry in Cognition - A Formal Account

Hans Alves, Daniel Leising, Anne Wiedenroth, Christian Unkelbach, Nele Freyer, Paula Knischewski
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Valence asymmetries - the tendency for negative stimuli to elicit more processing effort than positive stimuli - have been widely observed but remain theoretically contested. To advance this debate, we present a formalized account that integrates two major explanatory perspectives: the intrapsychic (or phylogenetic), and the ecological (or ontogenetic) approach. We introduce a concise set of parameters to specify the key concepts and analyze the argumentative structure of each perspective. This yields three major insights: a) parts of the established terminology are misleading and we suggest using more informative labels such as valence-driven and distinctiveness-driven instead, b) it is essential to specify how exactly “good” and “bad” stimuli are distinguished from one another, and c) some explanations rely on implicit yet critical assumptions such as the probability of having contact with stimuli. Clarifying these theoretical foundations provides a framework for conducting informative empirical tests in future research.

Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Cognitive Computing and Networks
2.48
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Valence Asymmetry in Cognition - A Formal Account — Hans Alves, Daniel Leising, et al. · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS