Don’t pay attention to what you see! Negative commands and attention bias

Open access


The paper presents research into the effects of the use of negations in directives (orders, suggestions, requests). Three experiments are described that tested the effects of instructions formulated in various ways: direct (pay attention to) and negated (don’t pay attention to) commands to focus the attention. Indicators of attention focusing that were used include: the correctness of answers to questions about a selection of comic book pages (Experiment 1); the time needed to name the colours of stimulus words and the level of recall of these words after completion of the colour naming task (Experiment 2 and 3). The results showed that a direct command influenced all indicators of attention focusing. However, a negated command increased the level of recall of details about the comic book pages, as well as the level of key word recall. Both the automatic process that generates the paradoxical effects of negated commands, as well as the controlled process of reasoning, may be responsible for the results of the memory task.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Beukeboom, C. J., Finkenauer, C. I. & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). The negation bias: when negations signal stereotypic expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 978-992.

Dalgleish, T. (1995). Performance on the emotional Stroop task in groups of anxious, experts and control subject: a comparison of computer and card presentation formats.Cognition and Emotion, 9, 341-362.

Deutsch, R., Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (2006). At the boundaries of automaticity: Negation as reflective operation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 91, 385-405.

Deutsch, R., Kordts-Freudinger, R., Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (2009). Fast and Fragile. A New Look at the Automaticity of Negation Processing. Experimental Psychology, 56, 434-446.

Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O. & Alkabets, I. (2005). Negation as positivity in disguise. In: H. L. Colston & A. Katz (eds.). FigurativeLanguage Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences (pp. 233-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Giora, R. (2006). Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 981-1014.

Giora, R. (2007). ‘‘A good Arab is not a dead Arab-a racist incitement’’: On the accessibility of negated concepts. In: I. Kecske´s & L. R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects (pp. 129-162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Giora, R., Fein, O., Aschkenazi, K. & Alkabets-Zlozover, I. (2007). Negation in context: A functional approach to suppression. DiscourseProcesses, 43, 153-172.

Giora, GR., Heruti, V., Metuki, N. & Fein, O. (2009). “When we say no we mean no”: Interpreting negation in vision and language. Journal ofPragmatics, 41, 2222-2239.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Jung Grant, S., Malaviya, P., Sternthal, B. (2004). The influence of negation on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 583-591.

Kaup, B. (2001). Negation and its impact on the accessibility of text information. Memory & Cognition, 29, 960-967.

Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A., & Lüdtke, J. (2007). Experiential simulation of negated text information. QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 976-990.

Lane, L.W., Groisman, M. F., Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Don’t talk about pink elephants. Psychological science, 4, 273 - 277.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: University Press.

MacDonald, M.C. & Just M. A. (1989). Changes in activation levels with negation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 633-642.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An Integrative approach. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.

Mayo, R., Schul, Y. & Burnstein, E. (2004). “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 433-449.

Mogg, K., Mathews, A., & Eysenck, M. (1992). Attentional bias to threat in clinical anxiety states. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 149-159.

Nęcka, E., Orzechowski, J. & Szymura, B. (2006). Psychologia poznawcza (Cognitive Psychology). Warszawa: PWN.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schul, Y. & Manzury, F. (1990). The effect of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring an invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 327-345.

Schul, Y. (1993). When warning succeeds: The effect of warning on success of ignoring invalid information. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 29, 42-62.

Sedek, G. & Krejtz, J. (2001). The subliminal neutralization of strong negative attitudes: The secret power of non-positive adjectives. PolishPsychological Bulletin, 32, 53-60.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 643-662.

Wason, P.C. (1965). The context of plausible denial. Journal of verbalLearning and verbal Behavior, 4, 7-11.

Wegner D. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts. New York: Viking/Penguin. Wegner, D. M. & Wenzlaff, R. (1996). Mental control. In: E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of BasicPrinciples (pp. 466-492). New York: Guilford Press.

Wegner, D., Ansfield, M. & Pilloff, D. (1998). The putt and the pendulum: Ironic effects of the mental control of actions. Psychological Science,9, 196-199.

Yaeger-Dror, M. (ed.) (2002). Negation and disagreement. Journal ofPragmatics (Special Issue) 34.

Polish Psychological Bulletin

The Journal of Committee for Psychological Sciences of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.185
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.258


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 156 156 43
PDF Downloads 85 85 28