Have you ever
thought about an amount of bad news you hear every day? Or maybe, could you
remind yourself the last good news you hear about?
Latterly, every
time I turn on TV, radio or open any newspaper I have low odds to come across
such topics as crisis, shootings, or corruption. And unfortunately, every time
it convinces me how terrifying this world is. A level of cortisol in my blood
increases because it seems that evil is closer and closer. And finally, I’m
wondering if any bigger good happens that is worthy to show during evening
news. Of course, except for celebrities’ weddings, divorces, private life
confessions or shocking faux pas in dress code. These issues find their
place between one tragedy and another - I am supposed to be cool about it.
However, still - isn’t true that bad news rush everyday headlines?
In my opinion it
is truth. And luckily for me there are scientists of the same point of view.
Trussler and Soroka (2014) did a study wherein asked people to choose some
articles from a news website to read in order to measure their eye-tracking. Of
course, they hid a real purpose of their study. What shouldn’t be surprising in
the context of this paper, most participants chose negative stories. Even
though at the same time they declared that they preferred good news and
discommended media that provided overfull negative facts. In another study that
was focused on electrical activity in the brain’s cerebral cortex, it was also
proved that people react stronger to negative stimuli, e.g. a mutilated face
than positive or neutral one (Ito, Larsen, Smith,& Cacioppo, 1998).
Baumeister,
Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2011) made a wide review of studies to
answer the question whether bad is stronger than good. Trying to answer the
above, they were searching for proofs in many fields including reacting to
events, relationships, emotions, learning, memory, information processing ,
health etc. Evidences indicate that we respond strongly to bad things. In
particular it applies to those bad news that retain in our unawareness even
after an extinction of behavior changes that were caused by a negative stimuli.
Michael J.
Robinson (People & the Press American, 2007) went a step further and
focused only on topics of news and prepared synthesis of 165 American surveys.
He found that topics such a war, terrorism, disasters were in top 5 categories
that had attracted people between 1986-2006.
Robinson,M. J. (2007). The news interest index 1986–2007: Two decades of American news preferences/Part 1: Analyzing what news the public follows- and doesn’t follow.
Daniel
Kahneman (2011) a man who whole life studies psychology perspective of
decision-making, as well as behavioral economics, also brings the theory of
fast reacting for bad signs of predator in his book Thinking fast and
slow (2001). Moreover, he writes about human “mechanism that is
designed to give priority to bad news” and pay our
attention that bad words such a crime or war (which we can hear in media
everyday) attract our attention faster that happy ones.
When we’ve already
known our original “tendency to bad”, following Rozin and Royzman (2001) we can
understand that negativity bias is “a principle that comes out in
most situations, whereas negative events are more salient, potent, dominant in
combinations, and generally efficacious than positive events.”
Actually, I’ve
also found another, a little different but still an interesting explanation. I
would like to mention John Allen Paulos (1990), a famous American mathematician,
who was tempted to write in his book Innumeracy that our focusing on bad
news is a part of probability theory and was mostly related to people leaving
in big cities, but it isn’t now. Why? According to statistics, unusual
accidents aren’t very often. However, in population of millions of people, a
probability that something bad will happen is higher. Even 1% becomes important
and significant in ratio of an average city. Thus, the bigger population you
live in, you are more aware of the occurred accidents. Nevertheless, times are
changing and now when most people have access to news from all over the world,
the prevalence of bad news increases for everyone.
The truth is that
no matter which theory we are more susceptible with regard to daily bad
breaking news, we definitely spend more time focusing on them what is very
profitable for media concerns.
Of course, the
solution is not to stop watching TV, listening to radio or using computer –
however this idea probably would be quite useful for many of us not only in
this case. Anyway, every day we should try to concentrate on a good that
surrounds us. I believe that thanks to that, we will see the difference in our
attitude to the life. And if someone asks you to remind yourself last news,
please remember, it should be something good that made you smile.
References:
Trussler, M.,&
Soroka, S. (2014). Consumer Demand for Cynical and Negative News Frames. The
International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360–79.
Ito, T. A.,
Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo,J. T. (1998). Negative information
weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative
categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
887-900.
Baumeister, R. F.,
Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C.,&Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
Robinson,M. J.
(2007). The news interest index 1986–2007: Two decades of American news
preferences/Part 1: Analyzing what news the public follows- and doesn’t follow.
Retrieved November 12, 2016, from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/pdf/NewsInterest1986-2007.pdf
Kahneman, D.
(2011). Thinking, fast and slow (pp. 300-302). New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Rozin, P., &
Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.
Paulos, J. A.
(1990). Innumeracy: mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.