Two routes for bipolar information processing, and a blind spot in between

International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 923-929

  Bonnefon, Jean François ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IN-BETWEEN; INFORMATION PROCESSING;

EID: 51049117518     PISSN: 08848173     EISSN: 1098111X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/int.20300     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Raufaste E, Vautier S. An evolutionist approach to information bipolarity: Representations and affects in human cognition. Int J Intell Syst 2007; this volume.
2. Shafir E. Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Mem Cogn 1993;21:546-556.
3. Isenberg D. Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;50:1141-1151.
4. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 1979;37:2098-2109.
5. Meszaros JR, Asch DA, Baron J, Hershey JC, Kunreuther H, Schwartz-Buzaglo J. Cognitive processes and the decisions of some parents to forego pertussis vaccination for their children. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:697-703.
6. Pitz GF, Downing L, Reinhold H. Sequential effects in the revision of subjective probabilities. Can J Psychol 1967;21:381-393.
7. Shafir E, LeBoeuf RA. Rationality. Annu Rev Psychol 2002;53:491-517.
8. Evans JStBT, Over DE. Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press; 1996.
9. Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 1996;119:3-22.
10. Stanovich KE. Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999.
11. Stanovich KE. The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2004.
12. Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG. Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychol Bull 1994;115:401-423.
13. Cacioppo JT, Gardner WL, Berntson GG. The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999;76:839-855.
14. Levinson SC. Interactional biases in human thinking. In: Goodie, E, editor. Social intelligence and interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1995. pp 221-260.
15. Boucher J, Osgood CE. The Pollyanna hypothesis. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1969;8:1-8.
16. Klar Y, Giladi EE. No one in my group can be below the group's average: A robust positivity bias in favor of anonymous peers. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;73:885-901.
17. Aloise PA. Trait confirmation and disconfirmation: The development of attribution biases. J Exp Child Psychol 1993;55:177-193.
18. Skowronski JJ, Carlston DE. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychol Bull 1989;105:131-142.
19. Ito TA, Cacioppo JT. Variations on a human universal: Individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias. Cogn Emotion 2005;19:1-26.
20. Peng K, Nisbett R. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. Am Psychol 1999;54:741-754.
21. Bagozzi RP, Wong N, Yi Y. The role of culture and gender in the relationship between positive and negative affect. Cogn Emotion 1999;6:641-672.