Half Full or Half Empty? Individual Differences in the Way We Interpret Uncertainty

Aimed at integrating cutting-edge psychological science into the classroom, columns about teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science offer advice and how-to guidance about teaching a particular area of research or topic in psychological science that has been the focus of an article in the APS journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Neta, M (2026). Facing ambiguity: What we do in the space between stimulus and response. Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Imagine walking into a room where your partner is talking on the phone. They see you, suddenly fall silent, and end the call. Do you assume they are planning a surprise for you? Or do you suspect that they were engaged in something nefarious? Research by Neta (2026) demonstrates that there are individual differences in how we respond to ambiguous situations and stimuli like this, with some people showing a predilection to a positive interpretation while others lean in a negative direction. This tendency, known as valence bias, represents a stable, trait-like difference, as people are consistent in their tendency for positive (or negative) assessments across situations.

As one example, Neta and colleagues asked people to evaluate happy, angry, and surprised faces. The surprised faces were ambiguous in that they could signal either a positive experience (e.g., seeing an old friend) or a negative experience (e.g., finding your car with a flat tire). The researchers found evidence for valence bias: Some participants tended to rate the surprised faces positively, while others were more likely to rate them negatively. In later studies, this same valence bias drove responses to simple ambiguous words (e.g., “break”) and complex ambiguous scenes (e.g., a scene of two people in a tearful embrace (Harp et al., 2021; Neta et al., 2009; 2013). These findings demonstrate that people are consistent in their valence bias not only across different stimuli but also over time—with high test–retest reliability for periods up to one year (Harp et al., 2022).

Despite general consistency in valence bias, there are changes in this bias with age. Children show a more negative valence bias than young adults, and positivity continues to increase across the lifespan (Neta & Tong, 2016). This developmental progression may result from the fact that positive appraisals require a “cognitive override” of an initial negative response. Data suggest that most people show an initial negative response to ambiguous stimuli, but some people engage in a reappraisal process that results in a more positive interpretation. Children may lack the regulatory ability to override those negative reactions.

See more Teaching Current Directions content.

Mouse-tracking experiments provide elegant evidence for this initial negativity hypothesis. In these studies, researchers measured the path participants’ computer cursors take while deciding between “positive” and “negative” evaluations of ambiguous stimuli. Positive categorizations often begin with movement toward the negative option before curving back toward the positive choice. Negative categorizations, however, tend to follow more direct trajectories. This suggests that even people who ultimately reach a positive conclusion initially experience a pull toward negativity.

This initial negativity bias may be adaptive from an evolutionary perspective, as missing a potential threat is often more dangerous than mistakenly assuming danger where none exists. That said, if we always jump to a negative conclusion, it could affect our health and well-being. In adults, negative valence bias is associated with several negative psychological and social outcomes, including increased depression, anxiety, and stress reactivity, as well as decreased social connectedness (e.g., Brown et al., 2017; Neta & Brock, 2021; Petro et al., 2021).

The good news is that an individual’s valence bias can shift. Interventions such as mindfulness-based stress reduction can shift people toward more positive interpretations, and these changes are linked to reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms (Harp et al., 2022; 2024). Future research may use valence bias both as a diagnostic marker and as a target for intervention.

Feedback on this article? Email [email protected] or login to comment.