2024-04-06 12:50:35
Tempted by negative strategies during election season… Focus more on bad words ‘negativity bias’
Raw criticism of the opponent is engraved in the mind rather than beneficial information such as policy pledges.
A tendency that stems from the survival instinct of primitive times, in which one had to be sensitive to dangerous news to survive.
Three times more sensitive to malicious information… In the end, you can’t overcome positivity
Political skepticism rises due to negative strategies… “No candidate who only slanders” has the opposite effect
‘Descendants of genocide’, ‘garbage’, ‘prostitution’, ‘adultery’.
As the election day gets closer, unpleasant words are flooding the election field. The primary negative competition is fierce, with people saying ‘the opponent is bad, so please vote for me’. It ranges from various harsh remarks made by the opposing candidate to criticism of bias, evasion of the law, and criminal record. Baseless slander against personal information is also serious.
In the midst of the provocative criticism, the really important candidates’ vision, political philosophy, and policy pledges lost their place. Let’s think about what key pledges our local congressman candidates have made for regional development. If you haven’t read the election announcement material carefully, it’s difficult to remember in detail. The same goes for each party’s major pledges. On the other hand, criticisms hurled at the opposing camp become deeply embedded in the mind even after hearing them just once.
At this time, voters are placed in the unfortunate situation of having to decide whose flaws are more worth paying attention to than which candidate will bring about regional development. The primary responsibility for this lies with politicians who are keen to undermine their opponents. The same goes for the media and YouTubers who enlarge and reproduce this.
However, there is a hidden psychological mechanism that operates more fundamentally than this. Why can’t politicians escape the temptation of negative attacks?
● Eyes and ears focus on negative information first
Cognitive psychologists find the cause in negativity bias, a psychological characteristic that focuses more attention on negative information. Negativity bias refers to the psychological tendency to be more aroused and influenced by bad information than good information. If your ears perk up more to news criticizing the other party than to policy pledges, you are affected by negativity bias.
Negativity bias appears frequently in everyday life. We easily let go of compliments that say, “You’re really good at it,” but we always pay attention to criticism that says, “You’re really bad.” Also, when investing in stocks, you suffer a greater psychological blow when they fall than when they rise by the same amount. Even though good and bad things happen alternately, we sometimes feel as if our lives are full of bad things.
Therefore, during election season, negative information such as a specific candidate’s abusive language, expedient practices, or criminal history has a powerful effect. Once a candidate gets caught up in gossip, it is difficult to leave a positive impression in the voters’ minds even if he later announces a good pledge. In particular, the blow is greater for political newcomers. This is because the influence of the first impression effect (Primary Effect), in which the first information about a specific target has a greater impact than information encountered later, and the influence of negativity bias are combined.
●8 out of 10 “I will listen to bad information first”
Why is negative information more powerful than positive information? The answer can be found in human survival instinct.
In the past, humans had to pay close attention to negative information that could threaten their survival. Negative information that would be in trouble if you didn’t know was more important than positive information that was good to know. For example, where not to go to avoid wild animals was more important than where to go to find game. You can search for places with a lot of game through trial and error, but once you meet a wild beast, it’s over.
Although we no longer encounter wild beasts on the road, negative information still takes priority in our cognitive systems. A research team from the Department of Psychology at the University of California asked participants to choose which news they would hear first: bad news or good news. Then, 8 out of 10 people responded that they would hear the bad news first. It was also discovered that those who heard bad news tended to immediately jump into action to find a solution to make up for the situation.
Our bodies also react sensitively to negative information. Several studies have shown that when exposed to negative information, heart rate and skin conductance increase and facial muscle contraction occurs, which takes a long time to return to normal levels. On the other hand, when exposed to positive information, this physical reaction rarely occurred, or if it did occur, it quickly returned to the original level.
● Is it more cost-effective than promoting pledges?
From this perspective, negative campaigning during election season is a cost-effective strategy in many ways. Some scholars claim that negativity is three times more powerful than positivity. According to this, the effect of a candidate appealing his or her political philosophy or vision three times and dissing an opponent’s candidate once is similar.
Randy Larson, a psychology professor at the University of Washington who has been studying negativity bias, had experiment participants record their daily moods in detail for one to three months. Analysis of this revealed that people usually experience one bad day for every three good days. Based on this, the research team concluded that when the ratio of positivity to negativity in life is 3 to 1, one can live a normal life that is neither very tragic nor extremely happy. The research team said, “Negative experiences produce approximately three times greater effects than positive experiences.”
In this extension, Roy Baumeister, author of ‘Negativity Bias’ and professor of psychology at Florida State University, proposes the ‘Rule of Four’. This means that in order to be a little happier than an average life, you need at least four times more positivity than negativity. If we apply this to an election campaign, you need to promote your positive image four times to overcome one negative attack from your opponent.
● Voters “I don’t vote for candidates who make personal attacks.”
The unfortunate thing is that the official campaign period is only 14 days. A negative offensive seems to be more effective in order to imprint itself in the public’s mind in a short period of time. But there is hope. Although humans may be more attracted to negative information to avoid threats, they do not like it more than positive information. Negative attacks such as slander and swear words directed at the opponent will, in the long run, tire out voters and make them leave.
A research team at the Georgia Institute of Technology analyzed over 520,000 posts on social media There was a limit to increasing the number of followers. On the other hand, the number of followers of users who continued to post positive posts increased significantly. In the long run, people are more attracted to those who convey positive messages.
There is one more fact that candidates should know. According to research by Shim Seong-wook, a professor of advertising and public relations at Hanyang University, voters basically do not evaluate candidates who use negative strategies favorably. He especially negatively evaluated candidates who attacked the opposing candidate’s military issues, family, religion, or health, and responded that he would not vote for that candidate.
However, it was different when there were policy-related issues, such as the other party’s financing measures, among the negative publicity content. Voters rationally accepted criticism of the opposing candidate’s political views and claims, not his or her identity. The intention to vote for candidates who attack their opponents in this way was also relatively high. Professor Shim said, “When negative attacks are limited to the political views of the opposing candidate, it can be seen as a relatively more reasonable criticism,” adding, “If personal attacks are mainly used like in this general election, in the long run, voters will be skeptical about politics, leading to a decline in voter turnout.” “It could backfire,” he said.
As the election day approaches, the urgent political world may be able to temporarily captivate our eyes and ears with harsh words and crude criticism. However, let us remember that in the end, we also have the ability to evaluate and judge it rationally. We’re just instinctively focused on bad stories, and we don’t like them any better.
Reporter Choi Go-ya [email protected]
2024-04-06 12:50:35