2026-10-14T06:31:05Z
https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai
oai:figshare.com:article/33988842
2026-09-24T17:43:12Z
category_21
category_61
category_132
portal_5
item_type_3
month_year_09_2026
<p>Descriptive statistics.</p>
Thomas U. Grund (25105293)
Biotechnology
Developmental Biology
Infectious Diseases
produce systematic asymmetries
negativity bias demonstrates
negative emotions concentrate
positive emotions diffuse
distributing positive emotions
xlink "> research
2 </ sup
distribute emotional attention
47 – 0
26 – 0
14 – 0
xlink ">
>< sup
negative attention
r </
positive attention
weakly correlated
political polarization
others focuses
individual level
incoming ties
incoming concentration
hirschman index
hhi ).
hated clubs
hate concentration
findings highlight
fewer targets
consumer behavior
communities allocate
analyze 36
41 vs
36 vs
35 vs
011 ).
<div>
<p>Background</p><p>Research on negativity bias demonstrates that negative information receives disproportionate cognitive attention at the individual level, but how this psychological mechanism shapes collective emotional patterns remains unclear. We investigate whether communities systematically concentrate negative emotions on fewer targets while distributing positive emotions more broadly.</p>
<p>Methods</p><p>We analyze 36,223 German football fans’ reports of loved and hated clubs, measuring attention concentration using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). We distinguish between outgoing concentration (how communities allocate their own attention) and incoming concentration (how attention from others focuses on particular targets), testing whether concentration differs between positive and negative affect.</p>
<p>Results</p><p>Negative attention was significantly more concentrated than positive attention for both outgoing (M = 0.36 vs M = 0.23, p < 0.001) and incoming ties (M = 0.41 vs M = 0.33, p = 0.011). Love and hate concentration are weakly correlated (r = 0.26–0.32), indicating independent processes. Structural factors predict incoming but not outgoing concentration (Pseudo <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.14–0.35 vs <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.47–0.49), revealing asymmetric mechanisms of attention allocation versus attraction.</p>
<p>Conclusions</p><p>Communities face cognitive constraints that produce systematic asymmetries in how they distribute emotional attention. These findings highlight how cognitive constraints shape collective emotional structures, with implications for political polarization, consumer behavior, and conflict dynamics.</p></div>
2026-09-24T17:43:07Z
Dataset
Dataset
10.1371/journal.pone.0356757.t001
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/_p_Descriptive_statistics_p_/33988842
CC BY 4.0