No, the minister mentioned a “bias of positivity” to explain what he sees like those events. Although the intention is understandable, the use of these concepts needs caution: the science of behavior should not become rhetorical trick.
In fact, the psychological phenomenon most documented by science is the opposite :. A classic study published by Paul Rozin and Edward Royzman showed this trend. The researchers presented the participants positive and negative events of similar intensity and, when evaluating the later memory, realized that negative events were remembered more clearly and longer. The brain privileges negative information for evolutionary reasons, as it quickly detecting dangers may have been vital to survival.
In addition, negative news caused significantly stronger physiological reactions, suggesting that our brain not only pay more attention to this information, but also processes it with greater emotional intensity. For these results, Stuart Soroka and other researchers did an experiment with participants from 17 different countries, measuring their physiological reactions, such as heart rate and skin conductance, while exposed to short and negative news videos.
This bias influences directly. A study published by Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral has shown that they have a much greater probability of being shared quickly on social networks and reaching more users than neutral or positive content. The researchers analyzed millions of tweets and identified that negative news spread significantly faster, clearly illustrating the power of this bias in digital behavior.
Thus, precisely because of this strong tendency to sharing and attention dedicated to negative content, it becomes problematic the inaccurate use of these concepts in public debates. When Alexandre de Moraes mentions a “bias of positivity,” he excessively simplifies behavior and mistakenly suggests that the public would be forgetting serious events for focusing on positive aspects. However, the danger seems to be different: constant exposure to negative content could, reducing critical sense in the face of frequent repetition of absurdities.
It is essential that in public debate, evidence is used responsibly, especially psychological concepts that directly affect our understanding of political and social events. The bias of negativity should not serve to relativize serious events or be vaguely invoked to discredit valid perceptions of society.
We need to reflect on our own behaviors as readers and information sharing. Recognizing our bias does not mean individual blame, but to take responsibility for how we consume and disseminate news. By better understanding how our mind reacts to negativity, we can consume information less vulnerable to the surface use of science in public discourse.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
