If it bleeds, it leads

For decades, newsrooms have operated on the premise that ‘if it bleeds, it leads‘. Although grim, it’s a smart approach: fMRI brain scans appear to confirm the neurological appeal of bad news. For example, when considering threats, there is greater and earlier blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) activation in the amygdala and periaqueductal gray area. can be observed. This can be considered a fight-or-flight response, as both are parts of the brain associated with rapid defensive action.

Negativity bias

This negativity bias is reflected in a recent study of 105,000 headlines (with over 370 million impressions), which showed that for every positive word in a medium-length headline, the click-through rate (CTR) decreased by 1%. Consistent with a negative bias hypothesis, each negative word increased CTR by 2.3%. Furthermore, the word “joy” decreased CTRs, while the word “sadness” increased them.

If it burns, it earns

A similar slogan often quoted in newsrooms is ‘If it burns, it earns‘, a recognition that impending threats promote our survival instincts and can be considered a form of attentional bias. This is probably why negative, shocking Facebook and Meta posts are liked and shared more often than posts with a positive bias.

A Study from 2018for example, studied two campaigns driven by populist rhetoric: Donald Trump’s US presidential campaign in 2016 and the British Brexit referendum of the same year. Researchers reported that both campaigns appealed strongly to similar pain points – fear, for example, but also lost national pride, exaggerated fear of immigration, challenging opposing voter groups, and racism, or the fear of other nationalities or ethnicities. These negative headlines powerfully generated awareness and engagement.

The effect of neuroticism

Compellingly, in-group hostility (the online belittling of political opponents) appears to be a stronger motivation to vote than in-group friendship (friendliness). So there appears to be political capital in encouraging online hatred among supporters.

Specifically, research shows that pain point dimensions of anxiety, lost pride, and loss aversion are all related to the personality dimension of neuroticism. Neuroticism subsequently emerged as a reliable predictor of voting in the 2016 Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election, even when controlling for variables such as political attitudes and regional industrial heritage.

The sleeper effect

Obshonka et al. al. (2018) then referred to a ‘sleeper effect’ of neuroticism as a meaningfully impactful force on the geopolitical landscape.

Interestingly, the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica explicitly used neuroticism as a measure of personality when running neuropolitical campaigns for the 2016 presidential elections of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

Unfortunately, bad news, fear and hatred in fueling these types of neurotic intentions seem to be harmful to our minds. The American Psychological Association State of Our Nation Report 2017 for example, found that while 95% of Americans said they regularly watch the news, more than half also claimed it caused them stress. Furthermore, much of the news content we are ultimately exposed to appears to be unsolicited through our social media feeds (a phenomenon known as incidental exposure). Incidental exposure is designed to catch us off guard and bombard us with shocking, negative messages. It is especially damaging to our mental health because it prompts us to instinctively fire off a response. That may be good for content creators’ pay-per-click revenue, but it’s not so positive for our anxiety levels.

Playing with our emotions

Negative headlines play heavily on our emotions, which is why they drive engagement so powerfully. A recent one Study from Stanford University for example, reported that emotional stories are about 22 times more memorable than facts alone. Combining negative headlines with emotionally triggering words and images then provides a powerful means of gaining viral political notoriety, maximizing the chance that a story will reach the top of an editor’s pile and become an outlet’s next headline.

Minimize your exposure

Worryingly, research has shown that people may exhibit more symptoms of depression and anxiety afterward only 14 minutes of news consumption. It makes sense to avoid being part of that statistic.

So what can we do?

Organizations like the APA provide simple but useful tips and interventions, such as setting aside only specific times of the day (e.g. half an hour at lunch) to check the news, and avoiding reading headlines before bed (to prevent sleep and mood be disturbed). Selectively choosing regulated news sources is also a positive approach, as is avoiding social media (to avoid incidental exposure and outraged clickbait). To elect positive news sites just as the Good News Network can also provide a panacea for the constant doom and gloom.

Finally, turn off notifications from news sites, to avoid being blindsided by a negative, adrenaline-inducing headline. You stay informed, you avoid an overload of news and you may even increase the chance that you will end each day with a bigger smile on your face.