Mitigating Negativity in Science Funding: The Role of Three-Step Procedures and Group Decision-Making

Negative potency, i.e. the tendency to give disproportionate weight to negative over positive information—poses a critical challenge in science funding, where decision-makers must evaluate uncertain and ambitious research ideas taking into account budget constraints. This study investigates the presence and mitigation of negative potency within a three-step evaluation process used by a public funding agency. Drawing on a unique dataset of research grant applications spanning 11 years, we examine how individual assessments by thematic experts (TEs) and subsequent group deliberations by panels shape funding outcomes. We find strong evidence of negative potency at the individual level: TEs are significantly more influenced by negative than by positive referee assessments, particularly in relation to project feasibility and impact. However, this effect dissipates during the panel stage, where group deliberation and relative comparisons across a broader pool of proposals appear to neutralize the impact of initial negativity. These findings make two key contributions. First, they extend the literature on decision-making biases in science funding by identifying deliberation as mechanism for mitigating negativity. Second, they provide actionable insights for policy: designing evaluation systems that incorporate structured group processes may help reduce bias and promote more balanced, inclusive, and merit-based funding decisions.