Reactions to undesired outcomes: Evidence for the opposer's loss effect.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1037/pspa0000436
Jacob D Teeny, Richard E Petty
{"title":"Reactions to undesired outcomes: Evidence for the opposer's loss effect.","authors":"Jacob D Teeny, Richard E Petty","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present research identifies a psychological phenomenon that helps to explain how people who prefer the same option to the same degree (e.g., two people equally prefer Politician A over Politician B) can differ in their negativity toward the same undesired outcome (e.g., one person reacts more negatively toward Politician A's defeat). Across multiple domains and a variety of methodologies (e.g., archival, longitudinal, experimental; <i>N</i> = 12,830), we provide evidence for a prevalent phenomenon we label <i>the opposer</i>'s <i>loss</i> <i>effect</i>. When people frame a preference in terms of opposition to the nonpreferred option (\"I'm anti politician B\") versus support for the preferred option (\"I'm pro Politician A\"), it does not change the extremity of their overall preference; however, opposers (vs. supporters) nonetheless report greater negativity to relevant, unwelcome news. As we show, this framing shifts <i>secondary characteristics</i> of the preference, namely, it decreases their feelings of ambivalence in their preference, which amplifies opposers' negativity when that preference is thwarted. Altogether, these findings advance the literature on framing effects, expand the known antecedents to felt ambivalence, and provide practical advice for forecasting negative, mass sentiment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":"209-225"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000436","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present research identifies a psychological phenomenon that helps to explain how people who prefer the same option to the same degree (e.g., two people equally prefer Politician A over Politician B) can differ in their negativity toward the same undesired outcome (e.g., one person reacts more negatively toward Politician A's defeat). Across multiple domains and a variety of methodologies (e.g., archival, longitudinal, experimental; N = 12,830), we provide evidence for a prevalent phenomenon we label the opposer's loss effect. When people frame a preference in terms of opposition to the nonpreferred option ("I'm anti politician B") versus support for the preferred option ("I'm pro Politician A"), it does not change the extremity of their overall preference; however, opposers (vs. supporters) nonetheless report greater negativity to relevant, unwelcome news. As we show, this framing shifts secondary characteristics of the preference, namely, it decreases their feelings of ambivalence in their preference, which amplifies opposers' negativity when that preference is thwarted. Altogether, these findings advance the literature on framing effects, expand the known antecedents to felt ambivalence, and provide practical advice for forecasting negative, mass sentiment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

对不希望的结果的反应:对手损失效应的证据。
目前的研究发现了一种心理现象,有助于解释人们在相同程度上喜欢相同的选择(例如,两个人同样喜欢政治家a而不是政治家B)对相同的不希望的结果的消极态度是如何不同的(例如,一个人对政治家a的失败反应更消极)。跨越多个领域和各种方法(例如,档案,纵向,实验;N = 12,830),我们为一种普遍现象提供了证据,我们将其称为对手的损失效应。当人们以反对非偏好选项(“我反对政治家B”)和支持偏好选项(“我支持政治家a”)来构建偏好时,这并不会改变他们整体偏好的极值;然而,反对者(相对于支持者)对相关的、不受欢迎的新闻表现出更大的负面情绪。正如我们所展示的,这种框架改变了偏好的次要特征,也就是说,它减少了他们对偏好的矛盾情绪,当这种偏好受到阻碍时,这种矛盾情绪会放大对手的消极情绪。总之,这些发现推进了框架效应的文献,扩大了已知的前因,感觉矛盾心理,并为预测消极的,群众情绪提供了实用的建议。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信