Our Negativity Addiction
Why negativity bias is the single root cause of polarization
“For reasons I have never understood, people like to hear that the world is going to hell.”
– Deidre McCloskey
This post represents my core thoughts on polarization and the culmination of several setup polarization posts that I have released here, here, here, and here.
Polarization is no doubt a complex issue. Any successful depolarization movement, however, will need to find a simple and compelling message in order to have a real impact.
The problem is, most pundits and commentators typically point to a dozen or more causes of polarization, including the two-party system, partisan media sources, the rise of social media, tribalism, confirmation bias, wealth inequality, lobbying, campaign finance laws, gerrymandering, the primary system, foreign state actors, etc., etc., etc.
With so many causes, how can we hope to simplify depolarization messaging?
Luckily, all of these causes actually have a single root cause. Surprised? I was too, but the evidence can be seen all around you once you know what to look for.
The Single Root Cause of Polarization is Negativity Bias
In short, negativity bias describes humanity’s tendency to give more psychological weight and attention to negative experiences, information, or stimuli compared to positive ones of the same magnitude.
This “addiction to negativity”, is not simply a preference for negative information, but a deeply rooted subconscious bias that most people struggle to recognize. The failure of the public to recognize their own negativity bias is the key driver of polarization in America. By singularly focusing depolarization efforts on recognizing and resisting this bias, I believe the rising tide of polarization can be turned back.
The reason negativity bias is the single root cause of polarization is because every other perceived cause of polarization can fit into one of two categories:
Proximal Causes: First order cause that is actually caused at a deeper level by negativity bias
Fake Causes: Only seems like a cause because of negativity bias
In both cases, negativity bias is the true driver, either because it causes the proximal cause or because it causes the fake cause to seem like a real cause.
“I have observed that not the man who hopes when others despair, but the man who despairs when others hope, is admired by a large class of persons as a sage”
– John Stuart Mill
1. Proximal Causes
Proximal causes are real amplifiers of polarization. Proximal causes include things like traditional media, social media, and divisive politicians, to name just a few major ones.
As I discussed in my previous post on demand-side thinking, these causes are really best thought of as proximal because they are simply suppliers reacting to consumer demand, and it is the demand, not the supply, that drives product outcomes.
Let’s take another look at the graphic below. Armed with demand-side thinking, we know that the increasingly negative news is a result of consumer demand, not the media itself.
A big reason this conclusion, and demand-side thinking more broadly, is so hard for people to believe is that we generally assume we are rational consumers. Rational consumers should demand fair and balanced news, the thinking goes, so why has the media gotten so negative? The assumption that consumers are rational makes demand-side thinking difficult, and it tends to shift the blame from the consumers to the media companies.
Negativity bias is the key to the puzzle. Negativity bias is the reason “if it bleeds, it leads” is the most reliably established law in media. People are naturally drawn to negative news stories because of our addiction to negativity.
Rather than rational consumers of “fair and balanced” media, we all subconsciously seek and pay more attention to negative news. Our addiction to negativity is therefore the true underlying cause of the consumer demand for negative news.
Here's the proof:
How many of these logos do you recognize? Zero? Me neither, before I wrote this article. These logos are for news organizations who focus entirely on positive news. There are dozens of others just like them.
Unfortunately for these positive news organizations, nobody cares about positive news. The common idea that “I would read way more positive news if it existed” is simply not true. The existence of these unpopular positive news organizations proves the extremely subconscious nature of our addiction to negativity.
A 2014 study focused on negativity bias in the media found that “even when participants say that they would like more positive news, they still select online news stories that are predominantly negative”.
Most people think of themselves as rational consumers who judiciously decide between different news sources based on trustworthiness and the quality of the coverage. In reality, the roots of our addiction to negativity go much deeper than almost anyone realizes. This subconscious addiction is ultimately what drives the media industry to produce mainly negative news coverage. Negative news is what attracts clicks, eyeballs, and subscriptions, so negative news is what gets produced.
Further proof of negativity bias in media is everywhere.
Stuart Soroka, one of the leaders in negativity bias research, makes the mountain of evidence clear:
“This is probably one of the most robust findings in the psychology literature”
- Stuart Soroka, Professor of Communication and Political Science at UCLA
Again, the media isn’t the problem. We are. And specifically, our subconscious addiction to negativity is what causes us to be the problem.
Outside of the traditional media landscape, this same dynamic also applies to social media and the political arena.
Social media content that is negative will tend to get more attention and engagement than positive content. Again, this can be hard to believe because we like to think that we are rational consumers, but in reality, our addiction to negativity reigns supreme.
Politicians and political talking points likewise operate in the same way. Negative talking points will always get more attention and rile up voters more reliably than positive talking points. Again, our addiction to negativity causes politicians to act the way they do. A politician’s goal is to maximize engagement and voter turnout. If the most reliable way to do that is to appeal to negative emotion, then that’s what they’re going to have to do. If they don’t, then their competitor will.
Summing it up, negativity bias is the key driver of the all-important demand side of the traditional media, social media, and political marketplaces. Negativity bias is therefore the root cause of other proximal causes.
“Every group of people I ask thinks the world is more frightening, more violent, and more hopeless – in short, more dramatic – than it really is”
– Hans Rosling, Factfulness
2. Fake Causes
The second bucket of perceived causes of polarization are not really causes at all. Included in this bucket are things like the two-party system, wealth inequality, closed primaries, lobbying, gerrymandering, the “culture war”, etc.
I’m not denying that some of these issues are real problems, but I am arguing that none of them amount to a meaningful contributor to polarization, despite what many in the polarization literature would argue.
The reason these issues are much less serious than they seem is due to another key element of negativity bias: Negativity bias makes virtually every political issue seem worse than it really is.
Below is a brief description of why each fake cause listed above is not as serious as it seems. Each description and argument could warrant an article of its own, so excuse the brevity. If any of these are particularly interesting, just let me know in the comments and I can write up a longer description.
The two-party system – The monolithic two-party system popularly portrayed is essentially a myth, as recent party realignment and inter-party disagreements have highlighted
Wealth inequality – The top 1% pays 42% of all federal taxes, and most Americans (61%) end up in the top 20% of income earners for at least two consecutive years
Closed primaries – Primary voters are no more extreme than the general electorate
Lobbying – The evidence that lobbying leads to better financial outcomes is mixed at best and negatively correlated at worst
Gerrymandering – Simply a myth, according to Brookings
What do all of these supposed evils have in common? Due to negativity bias, the negative talking points about each of these issues gain more attention and airtime than the more neutral or positive talking points I lay out above. Negativity bias therefore creates a public perception for each of these issues that is more negative than is truly justified by the full range of facts.
Additionally, whenever any of these issues see improvement, the improvement is rarely reported on or fully digested by the public, so the negative perceptions of these issues remain overly negative for far longer than is justified by the facts.
Does that mean that these issues aren’t real? Of course not. But for any given political issue, we should feel safe in assuming that, due to negativity bias, the issue in question is not as serious as most people believe.
Imagine a “seriousness scale” that rates how serious an issue is on a scale of 0 to 100. For a given issue with a perceived score of 80 (very serious), the same issue might only have a score of 50 if negativity bias weren’t warping the public’s perception of the issue. Still a serious issue, but not as serious as it seems.
Formalized, the argument is:
Negativity bias is a universal phenomenon that results in overly negative interpretations of underlying facts
Negativity bias affects how we perceive the media, social media, and the political arena
We should strive to understand political issues with as few biases as possible
Therefore, to correct for negativity bias, our default position should be that every political issue is less serious than it seems
This is especially true for those issues that make us personally feel angry, scared, or negative. The negative emotion evoked by an argument or issue should be a red flag that negativity bias is warping your perception.
Of course, emotion is part of politics and it’s impossible to not feel passionate about certain issues, but in general, negative emotion should be a dead giveaway that an argument or issue is unfairly benefitting from our addiction to negativity in the marketplace of ideas. To correct for negativity bias, our default approach to every political issue (especially the issues we’re most passionate about), should be that the issue in question is probably less dire than we think.
Detractors who would argue that this is a naïve approach are just showing how naïve they are about negativity bias.
“A constant drumbeat of pessimism usually drowns out any triumphalist song … if you say the world has been getting better you may get away with being called naïve and insensitive. If you say the world is going to go on getting better, you are considered embarrassingly mad. If, on the other hand, you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect a McArthur genius award or even the Nobel Peace Prize. In my own adult lifetime…the fashionable reasons for pessimism changed, but the pessimism was constant.”
– Matt Ridley, the Rational Optimist
So, What Are Next Steps?
Summing it all up, negativity bias is the single root cause of polarization in America. This means that we are all at fault since we are all subject to negativity bias. And when I say “we”, I don’t mean society broadly or some subset of uninformed and bias-prone citizens. I mean you.
Next time you’re looking through news headlines or scrolling twitter, really take a step back and think about what impulses are driving you to actually engage with a piece of political content. If it feels subconscious, that’s because it is. When you really reflect on those impulses, you’ll be shocked at how frequently the negative words, phrases, and videos are the most likely to grab your attention and drive engagement.
When you recognize that negativity, just stop the engagement. It takes practice, and it’s worth practicing. Practicing the regulation of our negativity consumption is the key to bringing down the temperature of American politics.
By individually regulating our negativity consumption, we can begin to take off our “negativity goggles” and instead see the world in a more accurate way. Progress and prosperity have been the overwhelming trend for the past 200 years. The reason most people can’t see that positive vision of reality is because of negativity bias.
Successfully educating people on negativity bias is the gateway to a more accurate understanding of the world, an appreciation for the incredible progress we’ve made to date, and the hope in the future that is required to keep the progress going. If we want to fight polarization and work towards progress, we’ll need to start by regulating our addiction to negativity.
TL;DR
Negativity bias is the single root cause of polarization.
Negativity bias is the reason the public subconsciously demands negative media coverage, negative social media content, and negative political talking points.
Negativity bias makes all political issues seem worse than they really are.
Our default approach to any political issue should be that it’s probably not as bad as it seems. Those who think this is a naïve approach are just showing how naïve they are about negativity bias.
Negativity bias should be thought of as an addiction. Fighting it will consist of educating on what negativity bias is and encouraging individuals to actively regulate their negativity consumption.
Nice piece, Travis! To add to your thoughts about positive news orgs: I think part of the reason they are such small players is that positive news is often *boring.* (And I say that as someone who writes in this field.) The orgs often lack the kind of funding needed for deep reporting, and without deep reporting, there's very little story to the story—drama, tension, relatability, all the factors needed for a good "plot." I definitely appreciate the work the Solutions Journalism Network is doing in this arena, to train journalists at major outlets how to write deeply reported stories with a solutions focus.
I also think some of the overt negativity in the Western world in particular has to do with a kind of identity crisis that Greg Lukianoff calls "problems of progress." We don't really know what we're trying to accomplish anymore, versus developing nations that have more serious problems but also have a sense of an upward trajectory.
I suspect you are right about this overall, but then how explain Obama’s huge draw as the candidate of “Hope” and Kamala as the candidate of Joy? These are examples of leaders of positivity. Is there also such a thing as positivity bias? What accounts for this if we are all so preternaturally prone to negativity bias?