Does mood really influence comparative optimism? Tracking an elusive effect

When is it good to feel bad? How sadness and fear differ in their effects on routine development

Introduction

This study follows recent calls to explore the emotional foundations of routine development. Routine development forms a nexus between stability and change and is thus crucial for studying organizational decision-making and organizational change. Individuals and teams going through organizational change often experience sadness and fear.

Methods

We conducted a laboratory experiment with 84 teams to study the effect of sadness and fear on routine development.

Results and discussion

In the sadness condition, we observed positive effects on repetitiveness, speed, reliability, and attentiveness in action. Teams experiencing fear reacted better to 'performance traps' in which pre-established routines are ineffective. Our findings show how the behaviors elicited by sadness and fear might ultimately affect team behavior, and therefore managerial practices.

The role of selective attention in the positivity offset: Evidence from event related potentials

Some research suggests that positive and negative valence stimuli may be processed differently. For example, negative material may capture and hold attention more readily than equally arousing positive material. This is called the negativity bias, and it has been observed as both behavioural and electroencephalographic (EEG) effects. Consequently, it has been attributed to both automatic and elaborative processes. However, at the lowest levels of arousal, faster reaction times and stronger EEG responses to positive material have been observed. This is called the positivity offset, and the underlying cognitive mechanism is less understood. To study the role of selective attention in the positivity offset, participants completed a negative affective priming (NAP) task modified to dissociate priming for positive and negative words. The task required participants to indicate the valence of a target word, while simultaneously ignoring a distractor. In experiment 1, a behavioural facilitation effect (faster response time) was observed for positive words, in stark contrast to the original NAP task. These results were congruent with a previously reported general categorization advantage for positive material. In experiment 2, participants performed the task while EEG was recorded. In additional to replicating the behavioural results from experiment 1, positive words elicited a larger Late Positive Potential (LPP) component on ignored repetition relative to control trials. Surprisingly, negative words elicited a larger LPP than positive words on control trials. These results suggest that the positivity offset may reflect a greater sensitivity to priming effects due to a more flexible attentional set.

Taking Stock of Unrealistic Optimism

Researchers have used terms such as unrealistic optimism and optimistic bias to refer to concepts that are similar but not synonymous. Drawing from three decades of research, we critically discuss how researchers define unrealistic optimism and we identify four types that reflect different measurement approaches: unrealistic absolute optimism at the individual and group level and unrealistic comparative optimism at the individual and group level. In addition, we discuss methodological criticisms leveled against research on unrealistic optimism and note that the criticisms are primarily relevant to only one type-the group form of unrealistic comparative optimism. We further clarify how the criticisms are not nearly as problematic even for unrealistic comparative optimism as they might seem. Finally, we note boundary conditions on the different types of unrealistic optimism and reflect on five broad questions that deserve further attention.