Going beyond a positive–negative dichotomy in judgment and decision‐making research: Insights for framing,counterfactual thinking,and ambivalence

Many areas of judgment and decision‐making research have historically relied on a simple positive–negative dichotomy (e.g., positive vs. negative framing). Although this classic assumption about the conceptual space has contributed to some of the field's more impactful findings (e.g., framing effects), it may also have mistakenly led us to believe that these findings told a complete story about biases in processing positive and negative information. Building on a tradition of theoretical accounts outlining how positive and negative information is more complex, the first part of this paper considers how the following three elements jointly help to tell a more complete story about framing effects: (a) regulatory focus theory's concept of the domain (loss vs. gain) of an outcome, (b) the sequencing of positive and negative frames, and (c) the asymmetric influences of positive and negative evaluative processes. Next, the paper reviews research that has contributed to integrating these elements, highlighting opportunities for further integration to generate new insights for framing effects, risky decision‐making, counterfactual thinking, and ambivalence. The reviewed studies suggest that a more sophisticated conceptualization of positive and negative information contributes to a deeper understanding of the basic processes that govern human judgment and decision‐making.