<p>An economist would say that if you do something wrong, you can make up for it by doing two good deeds (of equal magnitude). But psychologists say that it takes <a href="https://collectivehub.com/2017/05/how-many-good-experiences-finally-outweigh-a-bad-one/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">five</a> good impressions to make up for one bad impression.*</p>
<p>Why do psychologists say this and to what extent is it true? Is it, due for instance, to a &quot;negative&quot; halo effect?</p>
<p>*The reverse appears to be true on Stack Exchange, where it takes five downvotes to cancel out the point value of one upvote.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-24T17:45:01.620Z
This seems like something that depends entirely on how the problem is framed and how all the associated variables are operationally defined. In other words, it's nonsensical to attempt to find some universal truth to that statement.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-24T19:12:25.540Z
@BryanKrause: Re-phrased the second paragraph. I am more concerned about why psychologists say this than about whether or not it is universally true.
Tom Au
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-24T19:37:04.263Z
The article you linked links to a paper - have you read it?
Bryan Krause
<halo-effect>
Does it take five good impressions to outweigh one bad impression, and if so, why?
Tom Au
# Does it take five good impressions to outweigh one bad impression, and if so, why?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-05-24)

An economist would say that if you do something wrong, you can make up for it by doing two good deeds (of equal magnitude). But psychologists say that it takes [five](https://collectivehub.com/2017/05/how-many-good-experiences-finally-outweigh-a-bad-one/) good impressions to make up for one bad impression.\*

Why do psychologists say this and to what extent is it true? Is it, due for instance, to a "negative" halo effect?

\*The reverse appears to be true on Stack Exchange, where it takes five downvotes to cancel out the point value of one upvote.

**Tags:** halo-effect

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This seems like something that depends entirely on how the problem is framed and how all the associated variables are operationally defined. In other words, it's nonsensical to attempt to find some universal truth to that statement.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause: Re-phrased the second paragraph. I am more concerned about why psychologists say this than about whether or not it is universally true.  
> **username_1**: The article you linked links to a paper - have you read it?  

---

## 0 answers

