Negativity Bias as Addiction

Addressing two common rebuttals to the Negativity Thesis

In response to my article arguing that negativity bias is the sole cause of polarization (the “Negativity Thesis”), several readers have provided counterarguments that roughly fall into two buckets:

1. Since negativity bias can be thought of as an addiction, we should think of the supply-side as the main driver of polarization rather than the demand-side. After all, we blame drug dealers, not the addicts, for preying on addicts and getting their clients hooked

2. If negativity bias is such a deeply rooted subconscious addiction, can we really hope to overcome it?

Shouldn’t we blame the supply?

While it’s true that negativity bias can and should be thought of as an addiction, we need to be careful about what level of addictiveness we compare it to. Below is a simple scale showing various substances in increasing addictiveness, with the most addictive substances on the right.

The parallel blue line shows the amount of agency we typically ascribe to addicts. In general, the more addictive a substance, the less we blame the individual addict for getting addicted and the more we blame circumstances outside of their control.

Whereas an opioid addiction is typically a tragedy of genetics and life circumstance, a caffeine addiction is usually a case of an addict’s poor consumption regulation. Whereas the former deserves medical intervention and government support, the latter does not.

With this scale in mind, where should we think about negativity bias falling? More research needs to be done on the addictiveness of negativity bias specifically as it relates to political rhetoric, but my hunch is that it likely falls closer to the caffeine and sugar end of the spectrum. This means that comparing the actions of social media and divisive politicians to drug dealers who push to get their clients addicted is not really accurate.

A more accurate comparison would be to think of social media and politicians like Coca-Cola and Starbucks. Many people safely enjoy the products that these companies produce. When people enjoy these suppliers’ products too much, the answer is to educate and intervene at the level of the individual to regulate consumption. We do not blame the companies themselves or drastically alter how these companies are allowed to operate.

Even though negativity bias operates like an addiction, the individual consumers of negativity are still responsible for their consumption habits. To the extent people are addicted to negativity, we should focus on and regulate consumption at the individual level.

This can be done, similar to caffeine and sugar, by employing large-scale, grassroots campaigns that aim to educate on why we are addicted to negativity (negativity bias) and how we can resist this addiction (heavily discounting negative media, narratives, and talking points).

If it turns out that negativity bias in politics really is a more serious addiction like alcohol or opioids, then perhaps real medical and rehab-style interventions will be necessary along with more serious regulations for suppliers. Either way, much greater focus on the demand-side is needed, so thinking about our negativity consumption as a subconscious addiction is a good place to start.

Can we actually overcome negativity bias?

Even though negativity bias has been affecting human decision making for millennia, there are plenty of reasons to believe that we can overcome it. One clear parallel is our ability to overcome the innate human propensity for violence.

In his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker outlines in meticulous detail how and why violence has declined across human societies over the past several millennia.

The data can be summarized by the chart below from Our World in Data. In western Europe, homicide rates have roughly fallen from several dozen per 100,000 people in the early modern period to less than 1 per 100,000 people today. The global average murder rate today is ~6. As Pinker shows, premodern stateless societies regularly reached murder rates of 200+.

Is this decrease in violence just a result of better societal institutions? Pinker argues that while institutions play a role, the culture as a whole has become much less violent, which is the main driver of the decrease. 

A few anecdotes that show just how much the public’s demand for violent entertainment has decreased:

• In Classical Rome, thousands of spectators would regularly turn out to gladiatorial games to watch gladiators die spectacularly violent and bloody deaths. American football might be the closest thing we have to gladiators today, and there is a huge and growing focus on player safety and the avoidance of serious injuries

• In medieval Europe, one popular game involved nailing a cat to a wooden post by one arm. Two competitors would take turns headbutting the cat with their hands tied behind their back until the cat died. But watch out! The exciting part of the game was that the cat still had one arm to defend itself with, so if participants weren’t careful, the cat might scratch out a participant’s eye or cheek. Exciting fun for the whole family…

• As late as the 18^th century, public executions in France were mass spectator events, with some executions attracting tens of thousands of spectators from across the country

Violence has been a key piece of human nature for millennia, right up to the modern era. The rapid decline in violent tendencies and demand for ultra-violent entertainment shows that deeply rooted human desires can change rapidly.

The decline in violence has also occurred mostly subconsciously and organically. Pinker’s “Better Angels” of empathy, reason, morality, commerce, etc. have organically caused a decrease in violence, as opposed to a more highly targeted and top-down approach to violence prevention and reduction.

For an example of the more highly targeted approach, think about the rapid decline in cigarette smoking in the US. Today, ~11% of Americans are cigarette smokers, compared to more than 40% just 50 years ago. A targeted and sustained campaign can overcome low-level addictions in a relatively short amount of time, and underlying cultural and economic forces can change human nature over the long run. Clearly, just because negativity bias is “human nature” doesn’t mean that these impulses can’t be overcome. Just because we demand negativity today, doesn’t mean we have to demand negativity tomorrow.