Don’t think of a white rabbit. Why negations are difficult to process – Part 1

As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about how language works—especially in legal, insurance, and policy contexts—I recently came across a fascinating academic article that made me rethink how we use negation in everyday communication. The paper, Inhibitory Mechanisms in the Processing of Negations: A Neural Reuse Hypothesis by Beltrán, Liu, and de Vega, explores how our brains process negative sentences. And spoiler alert: it’s not as straightforward as we might think.

The hypothesis: negation reuses inhibitory brain mechanisms

The authors propose that when we read or hear a negative sentence—like “The flower is not yellow”—our brain doesn’t just flip a switch and understand it. Instead, it first imagines the negated idea (a yellow flower), and then has to suppress that image to arrive at the actual meaning (maybe a red or blue flower). This process activates the same inhibitory mechanisms we use to stop physical actions or suppress thoughts. In other words, negation isn’t just a linguistic operation—it’s a cognitive one that requires effort.

Why this matters for plain language

Let’s apply this to a real-world example from an insurance policy:

“We don’t insure vehicles that are not registered in South Africa.”

This sentence contains two negatives: “don’t insure” and “not registered.” To understand it, the reader has to:

1. Imagine a vehicle that is registered.
2. Reverse that idea to not registered.
3. Apply the rule that such vehicles are not insured.

That’s a lot of mental gymnastics for a simple eligibility rule.

A clearer alternative?

“We only insure vehicles registered in South Africa.”

Same meaning, less cognitive load.

But wait, there’s more!

One of the most compelling findings in the article comes from a study by Mayo et al. (2014). Participants watched videos and read stories, then answered questions about object properties—like whether the wine shown was red or white.

Later, they were asked to recall the objects.

Here’s what happened:

• When participants had previously negated a property (e.g., “It was not red wine”), they were less likely to remember the wine at all.
• In contrast, when they affirmed a property (e.g., “It was white wine”), recall was significantly better.

So negation doesn’t just slow comprehension—it can actually impair memory.

What this means for information design

This research reinforces the plain language checklist item: rephrase negative statements as positive ones. It proves that negation is risky. It’s not just harder to understand—it’s harder to remember. And in contexts like insurance, healthcare, or legal communication, that can have real consequences.

If we want people to understand and retain important information, we need to:

• Minimize the use of negation.
• Avoid double negatives.
• Frame rules and policies in affirmative, direct language.

So, what?

Negation activates the brain’s “stop” systems. It’s like asking someone to imagine something, then immediately forget it and imagine something else. That’s a lot to ask—especially when clarity and recall are critical.

So next time you’re drafting a policy, writing a contract, or designing a form, ask yourself:
Can I say this without a “not”?

Your readers—and their brains—will thank you.

And if you don’t want to do this yourself – give me a shout. I’m happy to help.