News stories about terrorism, disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and other potential threats become increasingly negative and inaccurate when they pass from person to person, according to a new study.
“Society is an amplifier for risk.”
The study finds that even drawing the public’s attention to unbiased, neutral facts does not mitigate this contagion of panic.
This is the first research to investigate the impact of dread on the social amplification of threat, and to examine the re-exposure of balanced information on the social diffusion of messages.
The results have important implications for contemporary society—with the constant proliferation of news stories (both legitimate and fake), rumors, retweets, and messages across social media.
The researchers analyzed 154 participants on social media. They were split into 14 chains of 8 people, with the first person in each chain reading balanced, factual news articles, and writing a message to the next person about the story, the recipient writing a new message for the next person, and so on.
The sixth person in each chain was given the message from the previous person, alongside the original neutral news story.
In every chain, stories about dreaded topics became increasingly more negative, and biased toward panic and fear as it was passed from person to person—and crucially, the reintroduction of unbiased facts didn’t mitigate this effect.
The original neutral information had virtually no effect on reducing people’s increasingly negative outlook.
“Society is an amplifier for risk. This research explains why our world looks increasingly threatening despite consistent reductions in real-world threats,” says Thomas Hills, a professor in the psychology department at the University of Warwick.
“It also shows that the more people share information, the further that information gets from the facts and the more resilient it becomes to correction.”
The research appears in Risk Analysis.
Source: University of Warwick
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Epoch Times.