Good news lifts our spirits. Inspirational stories warm our hearts and bring tears to our eyes. We smile in appreciation and silently cheer. But bad news sells papers, increases viewership and ticket sales and captures our attention more rapidly, more often and with greater impact.
It’s not that we don't value a morale-boosting story. During the Great Depression when Americans were emotionally and financially depleted, Seabiscuit, the underdog racehorse, galvanized a down-and-out population and became a symbol of hope and encouragement. More than 60 years later, the legendary champion was profiled in Laura Hillenbrand’s 2001 book Seabiscuit and subsequent 2003 award-winning movie of the same name. The story captivated new generations of admirers and the film ranks 50th on the American Film Institute’s list of the100 most inspirational movies of all time.
Now yet again, amidst an abysmal economy and unemployment rate in addition to a flailing healthcare system and ongoing, expensive – both in causalities and financial cost - wars on terrorism, Americans are subjected to a seemingly unnecessary constant barrage of disheartening information. And while we need to be kept abreast of current affairs no matter how dire, we also need more than an occasional, token dose of inspirational and uplifting news.
So it was a welcome diversion when, after 69 days during which 33 Chilean miners were trapped 2,300 feet underground, the men were miraculously and dramatically rescued on October 12. In fact, according to an October 20 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press report, during the week of the rescue, the story dominated the public's news interest with 49 percent of the public following the rescue “very closely”—more than coverage of the economy (42 percent) and the midterm elections (33 percent). And only weeks later there was continuing related “feel good” news when 34-year-old rescued miner Edison Pena joined approximately 45,000 other runners in the November 7 New York City Marathon.
Ironically, scientific research indicates that unpleasant news generates more attention than its pleasant and neutral counterparts. Negativity bias or brain bias is a psychological phenomenon by which humans pay more attention and give more weight to negative rather than positive experiences and information.
According to University of Chicago psychologist Dr. John Cacioppo, the brain is highly responsive to stimuli that are deemed unpleasant. Negative information elicits a greater surge in electrical activity and as a result our attitudes are more easily influenced by downbeat rather than upbeat news. The human brain is hardwired to negativity and is like “Velcro for negativity and Teflon for positivity” according to Dr. Rick Hanson, neuropsychologist and author of Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom (2009).
Consequently, the media—tabloid and mainstream—cater to that physiological reaction, providing more of what will secure our attention, resulting in a predominance of negativity. Arguably, this qualifies as media bias which is generally defined as the selection of which and how stories and events are reported. It implies the perceived, covert inclination to avoid neutral and balanced accounts, contrary to journalistic standards.
Interestingly however, is that the information that grabs our attention may not be consistent with what we prefer to pass along. According to a 2009-2010 study by University of Pennsylvania-Wharton School professors Jonah Berger and Katherine L. Milkman, although negative news receives more attention, good news is socially transmitted more frequently, and consequently is more viral.
Last February, after analyzing 7,000 of the New York Times’ most emailed articles over the course of three months, Drs. Berger and Milkman concluded that the readership trend was to forward to friends or colleagues emotional articles, with an emphasis on positive rather than negative. Moreover, lengthy, thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating content—like science-related information (including technology and health) accounting for 30 percent of the forwards—was also highly shared.
Dr. Berger explained that while “emotion in general leads to transmission,” there is a distinction between emotions and their related virality. Articles inducing disgust, surprise (which can be positive and negative) anger and anxiety are more likely to make a paper’s most emailed list whereas sad content is less viral.
Of note is that awe, a strong emotion, had the greatest relationship to making the most emailed list. The researchers used two criteria in determining an awe-inspiring story: that its scale is large and that forces the reader to view the world in a different way and is a story that can inspire and cause one to stop and think.
Dr. Berger explained ”If I’ve just read this story that changes the way I understand the world and myself, I want to talk to others about what it means. I want to proselytize and share the feeling of awe. If you read the article and feel the same emotion, it will bring us closer together.”
Consistent with the Wharton findings was a November 18 review of the New York Times’ 25 most-emailed articles over a 30-day period. Ranked first was a health-related essay entitled Why Sisterly Chats Make People Happier. Thelight-heartedtitle belies the revelation that growing up with a sister makes people more optimistic, more ambitious and emotionally stronger and healthier according to the psychologystudies cited.Three additional health-related articles—two science and one technology—were also included in the top 25.
With almost universal access to technology that allows, even encourages us to choose and share, and despite a predominance of negative news, we tend to isolate the emotional, the upbeat, the thought-provoking and the unusual and pass it along. So perhaps the media should give its audience more of what it prefers to share: more good news!
-Gayle S. Fixler has a Bachelor of Science degree in journalism from Arizona State University, is a Washington, DC freelance writer and a regular contributor to Reflections.
