Breaking Bad (into More than One Category): Cooking up Some Granular Negativity

Abstract Evaluation is typically organized on a positive-to-negative valence continuum. We advocate instead for greater functional granularity. We do so with our Dual Implicit Process Model (DIPM), which serves as a case in point by having provided both conceptual and empirical insights via distinguishing evaluation of physically-threatening negativity (i.e., stimuli that are evaluatively negative and diagnostic of immediate physical danger) from nonthreatening negativity (i.e., stimuli that are also evaluatively negative but not immediately physically harmful). Specifically, we (a) briefly review the historical role of valence and its complications, (b) detail distinctions between physical-threat-negative and nonthreat-negative processes, (c) outline the DIPM and its empirical support, (d) illustrate with concrete empirical examples the explanatory benefit of the DIPM’s functional evaluative distinction, and (e) argue for the theoretical advantages of using a multi-dimensional, process-based taxonomy of evaluation over a simple valence-based one. Understanding the distinct functional nature of experiences that have traditionally been collapsed together as negative valence provides a more detailed and accurate roadmap for addressing critical question about human evaluation.