Negative online news articles are shared more to social media.
Negativity bias
Online news
Social media
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 09 2024
16 09 2024
Historique:
received:
01
04
2024
accepted:
26
08
2024
medline:
17
9
2024
pubmed:
17
9
2024
entrez:
16
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prior research demonstrates that news-related social media posts using negative language are re-posted more, rewarding users who produce negative content. We investigate whether negative material from external news sites is also introduced to social media through more user posts, offering comparable incentives for journalists to adopt a negative tone. Data from four US and UK news sites (95,282 articles) and two social media platforms (579,182,075 posts on Facebook and Twitter, now X) show social media users are 1.91 times more likely to share links to negative news articles. The impact of negativity varies by news site and social media platform and, for political articles, is moderated by topic focus, with users showing a greater inclination to share negative articles referring to opposing political groups. Additionally, negativity amplifies news dissemination on social media to a greater extent when accounting for the re-sharing of user posts containing article links. These findings suggest a higher prevalence of negatively toned articles on Facebook and Twitter compared to online news sites. Further, should journalists respond to the incentives created by the heightened sharing of negative articles to social media platforms, this could even increase negative news exposure for those who do not use social media.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39285221
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71263-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-71263-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21592Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
OFCOM. News Consumption in the UK: 2023. 1–23 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/264651/news-consumption-2023.pdf (2023).
Pew Research Center. Social Media and News Fact Sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/ (2023).
Trussler, M. & Soroka, S. Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. Int. J. Press/Polit. 19, 360–379 (2014).
doi: 10.1177/1940161214524832
Bellovary, A. K., Young, N. A. & Goldenberg, A. Left- and right-leaning news organizations use negative emotional content and elicit user engagement similarly. Affect. Sci. 7, 1–12 (2021).
Trilling, D., Tolochko, P. & Burscher, B. From newsworthiness to shareworthiness: How to predict news sharing based on article characteristics. J. Mass Commun. Q. 94, 38–60 (2017).
Johnston, W. M. & Davey, G. C. The psychological impact of negative TV news bulletins: The catastrophizing of personal worries. Br. J. Psychol. 88, 85–91 (1997).
pubmed: 9061893
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02622.x
Park, C. S. Applying, “negativity bias” to Twitter: Negative news on Twitter, emotions, and political learning. J. Inform. Tech. Polit. 12, 342–359 (2015).
doi: 10.1080/19331681.2015.1100225
Holman, E. A., Garfin, D. R. & Silver, R. C. Media’s role in broadcasting acute stress following the Boston Marathon bombings. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 93–98 (2014).
pubmed: 24324161
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316265110
Piotrkowski, C. S. & Brannen, S. J. Exposure, threat appraisal, and lost confidence as predictors of PTSD symptoms following September 11, 2001. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 72, 476–785 (2002).
pubmed: 15792033
doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.72.4.476
Longpré, C. et al. Staying informed without a cost: No effect of positive news media on stress reactivity, memory and affect in young adults. PLoS ONE 16, e0259094 (2021).
pubmed: 34710138
pmcid: 8553098
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259094
Kumar, S., Jayant, R. & Charagulla, N. Sentiment analysis on the news to improve mental health. In 2021 IEEE MIT Undergraduate Research Technology Conference (URTC). 1–5 (2021).
Yang, Z. J. & Kahlor, L. What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Sci. Commun. 35, 189–212 (2013).
doi: 10.1177/1075547012441873
Soroka, S. N. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
Geer, J. G. Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. (University of Chicago Press, 2006).
Geer, J. G. & Vavreck, L. Negativity, information, and candidate position-taking. Polit. Commun. 31, 218–236 (2014).
doi: 10.1080/10584609.2013.828140
Rozin, P. & Royzman, E. B. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 296–320 (2001).
doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
Johnston, C. D. & Madson, G. J. Negativity bias, personality and political ideology. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 666–676 (2022).
pubmed: 35534708
doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01327-5
Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. J. Peace Res. 2, 64–90 (1965).
doi: 10.1177/002234336500200104
Lengauer, G., Esser, F. & Berganza, R. Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism 13, 179–202 (2011).
doi: 10.1177/1464884911427800
Robertson, C. E. et al. Negativity drives online news consumption. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 812–822 (2023).
pubmed: 36928780
pmcid: 10202797
doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01538-4
Ferrara, E. & Yang, Z. Quantifying the effect of sentiment on information diffusion in social media. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 1, e26 (2015).
doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.26
Dodds, P. S. et al. Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 2389–2394 (2015).
pubmed: 25675475
pmcid: 4345622
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1411678112
Soroka, S., Daku, M., Hiaeshutter-Rice, D., Guggenheim, L. & Pasek, J. Negativity and positivity biases in economic news coverage: Traditional versus social media. Commun. Res. 45, 1078–1098 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/0093650217725870
Schöne, J. P., Parkinson, B. & Goldenberg, A. Negativity spreads more than positivity on Twitter after both positive and negative political situations. Affect. Sci. 2, 379–390 (2021).
pubmed: 36043036
pmcid: 9383030
doi: 10.1007/s42761-021-00057-7
Stieglitz, S. & Dang-Xuan, L. Impact and diffusion of sentiment in public communication on Facebook. In ECIS 2012 Proceedings. Vol. 98. 1–13 (2012).
Jung, A.-K., Stieglitz, S., Kissmer, T., Mirbabaie, M. & Kroll, T. Click me…! The influence of clickbait on user engagement in social media and the role of digital nudging. PLOS ONE 17, e0266743 (2022).
pubmed: 35767538
pmcid: 9242456
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266743
Camaj, L., Çela, E. & Rexha, G. The audience logic in election news reporting on Facebook: What drives audience engagement in transitional democracies of Albania and Kosovo?. J. Inform. Technol. Polit. 21, 38–53 (2024).
doi: 10.1080/19331681.2023.2227847
Henn, T. & Posegga, O. Attention-grabbing news coverage: Violent images of the Black Lives Matter movement and how they attract user attention on Reddit. PLOS ONE 18, e0288962 (2023).
pubmed: 37556400
pmcid: 10411814
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288962
de León, E. & Trilling, D. A Sadness bias in political news sharing? The role of discrete emotions in the engagement and dissemination of political news on Facebook. Soc. Med.+ Soc. 7, 1–12 (2021).
Heidenreich, T., Eisele, O., Watanabe, K. & Boomgaarden, H. G. Exploring engagement with EU news on Facebook: The influence of content characteristics. PaG 10, 121–132 (2022).
doi: 10.17645/pag.v10i1.4775
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A. & Watts, D. J. Everyone’s an influencer: Quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 65–74 (2011).
Berger, J. & Milkman, K. L. What makes online content viral?. J. Market. Res. 49, 192–205 (2012).
doi: 10.1509/jmr.10.0353
Carver, L. J. & Vaccaro, B. G. 12-month-old infants allocate increased neural resources to stimuli associated with negative adult emotion. Dev. Psychol. 43, 54 (2007).
pubmed: 17201508
pmcid: 3593093
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.54
Ma, L., Twomey, K. & Westermann, G. Negativity bias in emotion perception on toddlers word’s learning: Findings from an eye tracking study. In International Convention of Psychological Science (ICPS 2019) (2019).
Dijksterhuis, A. & Aarts, H. On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychol. Sci. 14, 14–18 (2003).
pubmed: 12564748
doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01412
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323–370 (2001).
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S. & Gollan, J. K. The negativity bias: Conceptualization, quantification, and individual differences. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 309 (2014).
pubmed: 24970431
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13002537
Soroka, S., Fournier, P. & Nir, L. Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 18888–18892 (2019).
pubmed: 31481621
pmcid: 6754543
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908369116
Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P. B., Bechmann, A. & Petersen, M. B. Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115, 999–1015 (2021).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055421000290
Dodd, M. D. et al. The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: Connecting physiology and cognition to preferences. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 640–649 (2012).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0268
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B. & Alford, J. R. Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 297–307 (2014).
pubmed: 24970428
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13001192
Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., Gothreau, C. & Arceneaux, K. Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 613 (2020).
pubmed: 32042109
pmcid: 7306406
doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0823-z
Fournier, P., Soroka, S. & Nir, L. Negativity biases and political ideology: A comparative test across 17 countries. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114, 775–791 (2020).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055420000131
Garrett, R. K. & Stroud, N. J. Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and Counter attitudinal news consumption. J. Commun. 64, 680–701 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/jcom.12105
Brandt, M. J., Wetherell, G. & Reyna, C. Liberals and conservatives can show similarities in negativity bias. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 307 (2014).
pubmed: 24970429
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13002513
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J. & van der Linden, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2024292118 (2021).
pubmed: 34162706
pmcid: 8256037
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2024292118
Rogers, N. & Jones, J. J. Using Twitter bios to measure changes in self-identity: Are Americans defining themselves more politically over time?. J. Soc. Comput. 2, 1–13 (2021).
doi: 10.23919/JSC.2021.0002
Van der Meer, T. G. L. A., Hameleers, M. & Kroon, A. C. Crafting our own biased media diets: The effects of confirmation, source, and negativity bias on selective attendance to online news. Mass Commun. Soc. 23, 937–967 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/15205436.2020.1782432
Shin, J. & Thorson, K. Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. J. Commun. 67, 233–255 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/jcom.12284
AllSides. AllSides Media Bias Chart. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart (2023).
Hasell, A. Shared emotion: The social amplification of partisan news on Twitter. Digit. J. 9, 1085–1102 (2021).
Huszár, F. et al. Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2025334119 (2022).
pubmed: 34934011
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2025334119
Pew Research Center. Social Media Fact Sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/ (2024).
Laor, T. My social network: Group differences in frequency of use, active use, and interactive use on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Technol. Soc. 68, 101922 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101922
Petrocchi, N., Asnaani, A., Martinez, A. P., Nadkarni, A. & Hofmann, S. G. Differences between people who use only Facebook and those who use Facebook plus Twitter. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 31, 157–165 (2015).
pubmed: 26997849
doi: 10.1080/10447318.2014.986640
Guess, A. M. et al. Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science 381, 404–408 (2023).
pubmed: 37499012
doi: 10.1126/science.add8424
Cobbe, J. Algorithmic censorship by social platforms: Power and resistance. Philos. Technol. 34, 739–766 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s13347-020-00429-0
Twitter. About Moments. https://help.twitter.com/en/using-x/twitter-moments .
Bell, E. J., Owen, T., Brown, P. D. & Hauka, C. The Platform Press: How Silicon Valley Reengineered Journalism (The Platform Press, 2017).
Perra, N. & Rocha, L. E. C. Modelling opinion dynamics in the age of algorithmic personalisation. Sci. Rep. 9, 7261 (2019).
pubmed: 31086228
pmcid: 6514165
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43830-2
Molyneux, L. What journalists retweet: Opinion, humor, and brand development on Twitter. Journalism 16, 920–935 (2015).
doi: 10.1177/1464884914550135
McGregor, S. C. & Molyneux, L. Twitter’s influence on news judgment: An experiment among journalists. Journalism 21, 597–613 (2020).
doi: 10.1177/1464884918802975
Mourão, R. R. The boys on the timeline: Political journalists’ use of Twitter for building interpretive communities. Journalism 16, 1107–1123 (2015).
doi: 10.1177/1464884914552268
McGregor, S. C. Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion. Journalism 20, 1070–1086 (2019).
doi: 10.1177/1464884919845458
Parmelee, J. H. Political journalists and Twitter: Influences on norms and practices. J. Med. Pract. 14, 291–305 (2013).
doi: 10.1386/jmpr.14.4.291_1
Rozado, D., Hughes, R. & Halberstadt, J. Longitudinal analysis of sentiment and emotion in news media headlines using automated labelling with transformer language models. PLOS ONE 17, e0276367 (2022).
pubmed: 36256658
pmcid: 9578611
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276367
van der Meer, T. G. L. A., Kroon, A. C., Verhoeven, P. & Jonkman, J. Mediatization and the disproportionate attention to negative news. J. Stud. 20, 783–803 (2019).
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Eddy, K. & Nielsen, R. K. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022 (2022).
Bachleda, S. et al. Individual-level differences in negativity biases in news selection. Pers. Individ. Differ. 155, 109675 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109675
Krawczyk, K. et al. Quantifying online news media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Text mining study and resource. J. Med. Internet Res. 23, e28253 (2021).
pubmed: 33900934
pmcid: 8174556
doi: 10.2196/28253
Schöne, J. P., Garcia, D., Parkinson, B. & Goldenberg, A. Negative expressions are shared more on Twitter for public figures than for ordinary users. PNAS Nexus 2, 1–11 (2023).
doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad219
De Clerck, B., FernandezToledano, J. C., Van Utterbeeck, F. & Rocha, L. E. C. Detecting coordinated and bot-like behavior in Twitter: The Jürgen Conings case. EPJ Data Sci. 13, 1–26 (2024).
doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00477-y
Stroud, N. J. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice (Oxford University Press, 2011).
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755509.001.0001
Iyengar, S. & Hahn, K. S. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J. Commun. 59, 19–39 (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
González-Bailón, S. et al. Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science 381, 392–398 (2023).
pubmed: 37499003
doi: 10.1126/science.ade7138
Guess, A. M. et al. How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?. Science 381, 398–404 (2023).
pubmed: 37498999
doi: 10.1126/science.abp9364
Nyhan, B. et al. Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature 620, 137–144 (2023).
pubmed: 37500978
pmcid: 10396953
doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06297-w
NOW Corpus. English-Corpora: NOW. https://www.english-corpora.org/now/ .
Davies, M. The new 4.3 billion word NOW corpus, with 4–5 million words of data added every day. In Proceedings of the 9th International Corpus Linguistics Conference. 1–2 (2017).
Hutto, E. & Gilbert, C. H. E. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Med. 8, 216–225 (2014).
doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550
YouGov. YouGov—What the World Thinks. https://yougov.co.uk/ .
Shareaholic. Lookup Social Share Counts. https://www.sharescore.com .
Semeraro, A., Vilella, S., Ruffo, G. & Stella, M. Emotional profiling and cognitive networks unravel how mainstream and alternative press framed AstraZeneca, Pfizer and COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Sci. Rep. 12, 14445 (2022).
pubmed: 36002554
pmcid: 9400577
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18472-6
Gieber, W. Do newspapers overplay ‘negative’ news?. J. Q. 32, 311–318 (1955).
Lee, J. & Hamilton, J. T. Anchoring in the past, tweeting from the present: Cognitive bias in journalists’ word choices. Plos one 17, e0263730 (2022).
pubmed: 35235575
pmcid: 8890637
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263730
Dhuman, G. S. & Vargas, N. Threatening places or diverse spaces: Divergent constructions of Florida Puerto Ricans across Twitter and newspaper articles. Sociol. Inquiry 90, 101–122 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/soin.12295
Emsley, R., Lunt, M., Pickles, A. & Dunn, G. Implementing double-robust estimators of causal effects. Stata J. 8, 334–353 (2008).
doi: 10.1177/1536867X0800800302