economic subpersonal
LAB
BAD
IS
BETTER
Bad is Better
Liviu Poenaru, Dec. 12, 2024
Our cognitive processes inherently prioritize the processing of negative stimuli (Baumeister, 2001; Soroka, Fournier, & Nir 2019), a fact that has not gone unnoticed by the media, particularly social networks. This predisposition, known as the negativity bias, means that humans are more likely to focus on and remember negative information over positive or neutral information. Evolutionarily, this bias may have helped humans survive by making them more alert to dangers and threats. However, in the modern context of constant digital media consumption, this bias can have detrimental effects (Garrett, 2009; Martínez-Cortés & Núñez-Gómez, 2020; Sunstein, 2017; Bessi & Ferrara, 2016; Guess, Nyhan, & Reifler 2018).
​
On the strictly synaptic level, Squire and Kandel discuss the hypothesis of plasticity, which posits that the strength of synaptic connections (the ease with which a cell's action potential excites or inhibits its target cell) is not fixed but is plastic and modifiable by neuronal activity:
"Learning would produce prolonged changes in the strength of synaptic connections by causing the growth of new synapses, and the persistence of these anatomical changes could serve as the basis for memory" (p. 72).
​
Synaptic plasticity is determined by the amount of neurotransmitters that synapses release, as well as by their modifiable form and structure. Additionally, habituation allows both animals and humans to learn the properties of unimportant stimuli, while sensitization (linked to the strengthening of synapses) enables them to learn about dangerous or threatening stimuli. Could the systematic use of fear by political and economic powers be explained by the goal of ensuring that sensitization is created within populations? Is it necessary to maintain this through the permanent strengthening of synapses that facilitate sensitization to certain stimuli? To also prevent habituation and cognitive disinterest (towards economic-political codes) from setting in?
​
Soroka, Fournier, and Nir (2019) provides robust empirical evidence of negativity bias in how people react to news, using a cross-national approach. This research is significant as it demonstrates that negativity bias is a universal phenomenon, observable across different cultures and countries. The findings have profound implications for understanding media consumption patterns and the impact of news on public perception and psychological well-being. The study found that participants consistently exhibited stronger psychophysiological reactions to negative news compared to positive or neutral news, regardless of their cultural background. This suggests that negativity bias is a deeply ingrained aspect of human cognition, likely rooted in evolutionary mechanisms that prioritize attention to potential threats. Additionally, it is increasingly embedded in current culture, as it represents one of the most significant sources of profit in today's economy.
​
The universal nature of negativity bias means that media outlets, regardless of their location, are incentivized to produce and highlight negative news content to capture audience attention. This can lead to a disproportionate focus on negative events, creating a skewed representation of reality and potentially fostering a more pessimistic view of the world among the public. The constant exposure to negative news can have significant psychological effects, contributing to increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. The study highlights the need for media consumers to be aware of this bias and its potential impact on their mental health. Media organizations should be mindful of the ethical implications of exploiting negativity bias. There is a need for balanced reporting that includes positive and constructive news to provide a more accurate representation of the world.
​
Thus, the digital platforms algorithmically capture our attention by emphasizing negativity. We are bombarded with increasingly polarized and catastrophic information, negative emotions, and negative comments that have a stronger impact, demonstrating that negative information is scrutinized more thoroughly than positive information (Baumeister et al., 2001). This has given rise to a pervasive, global communication model that thrives on capturing attention by any means necessary, while perpetuating a culture of suffering and frustration as opposed to the pursuit of well-being, success, and rewards. Only the concept of “total war” (Alliez, Lazzarato, 2018) can offer a comprehensible answer to this dissonant and paradoxical quest.
REFERENCES