The Emotional Toll of Virality: How Negative Sentiment Shapes Our Social Media Experience
Doom-scrolling. It’s a term we’re all too familiar with, an almost reflexive response to the steady flow of sensational, often negative content on social media. But what if this phenomenon isn’t just an effect of a hyperconnected world—but rather the result of intentional content strategies employed by news organisations? This idea piqued the curiosity of Stanford neuroscientist Brian Knutson, who, alongside his colleagues, studied millions of posts to understand why some stories are shared far and wide while others vanish into the digital void. What he found has critical implications for how we consume information—and how it shapes our perspectives, particularly in academia, where neutrality and objectivity are valued.
Their recent study offers a glimpse into the viral mechanics of news on social media, suggesting that content laden with high-arousal, negative emotions is more likely to “go viral” than positive or neutral posts. This discovery raises an important question: Are we simply reacting to content, or is the content itself designed to elicit reactions? Here’s a closer look at the findings and what they mean for those of us who rely on social media as an information source—and what we might consider as we seek to stay informed without compromising objectivity.
The Science Behind the Share
Using nearly 30 million tweets from over 180 news organisations across the political spectrum, Knutson and his team applied sentiment analysis, a computational method that evaluates emotional tone. Sentiment analysis tags content as positive, neutral, or negative, and categorises emotional cues—anger, fear, anxiety—that are known to boost engagement. The team then mapped the emotional tone against virality, revealing the driving forces behind America’s social media habits.
The study presents a revealing portrait of online news dissemination. Most notably, it underscores the power of negativity in capturing attention. According to Knutson, biased sources on both the political left and right leaned heavily into negative, highly charged content, achieving about 12% higher engagement rates than their more balanced counterparts.
So, why does negativity spread? There’s a simple psychological explanation: humans are wired to respond to threats. In the context of social media, this translates to heightened engagement with posts that stoke fear or outrage. Unfortunately, this engagement comes at a cost: researchers found that even balanced news outlets began to adopt the high-arousal tactics used by biased sources to keep up with the competition.
The Impact of 'Affective Pollution' on Academia and Research
A society lead by clicks and shares, even traditional, balanced news sources may feel compelled to intensify the emotional charge of their reporting, a practice Knutson calls “affective pollution.” For academics and researchers, this trend has significant implications. We rely on objective information to form hypotheses, conduct analyses, and present findings. However, when social media shapes the discourse around current events, the influx of emotionally charged content can impact not only public opinion but also the research landscape.
When exposed to continuous high-arousal content, researchers may subconsciously lean towards emotionally charged topics, even in academic settings. It’s not that these topics lack importance, but the way they’re presented might skew both public and academic perceptions. For instance, health crises, political conflicts, and climate change are critical fields of study, but a steady diet of fear-inducing headlines might lead to a hyper-focus on crisis-oriented narratives, potentially sidelining nuanced or long-term studies that lack the same emotional punch.
Awareness and Possible Interventions
Knutson’s research suggests that content virality is, in part, an algorithmic function of sentiment. So, what if we could reverse the trend? What if we prioritised content designed to educate rather than instigate? Some platforms have experimented with adding content filters for sentiment, allowing users to minimise exposure to high-arousal posts. For academic purposes, such tools could be invaluable in filtering out emotionally charged content that doesn’t serve research interests.
However, placing the burden on users to self-curate their feeds is limited. The real shift needs to occur within platform algorithms and content curation policies. As Knutson suggests, one possible intervention is a recalibration of algorithms that favour neutral or constructive content over highly negative posts. However, given the business model of social media—where engagement translates to revenue—this solution will require regulatory backing to become viable.
Implications for Academics and Researchers: Adopting a Balanced Perspective
As academics and researchers, we have a unique role in navigating this space. While it's tempting to focus on the high-stakes and high-arousal topics that dominate the media landscape, maintaining a balanced perspective remains essential. Here are a few ways to do this effectively:
Evaluate Sources Critically: When scrolling through social media, remember that not all sources are equal. Be mindful of news organisations that consistently rely on high-arousal content and seek out balanced perspectives to form well-rounded views.
Diversify Information Channels: Social media can be a powerful research tool, but it shouldn’t be the only one. Supplement it with academic journals, reputable news outlets, and industry publications to stay informed without the added bias.
Use Sentiment Analysis for Your Benefit: Researchers in fields such as psychology, sociology, and political science can apply sentiment analysis to study online discourse critically, observing not only what’s being shared but how it’s shared.
Advocate for Transparent Algorithms: As members of the academic community, we have a collective voice. By supporting research on social media sentiment and calling for transparent algorithms, we can advocate for platforms that foster meaningful engagement without resorting to emotionally manipulative content.
Focus on Long-Term Impact: While high-arousal topics may capture attention, longer-term studies—whether on social behaviours, climate change, or health—often provide richer insights. Focus on contributing to these enduring fields to combat the allure of high-emotion narratives that may lack long-term value.
A New Way Forward?
The findings from Knutson’s study offer a timely reminder of the power wielded by social media in shaping not just opinions but academic focus and research direction. It’s a call to action for academics, researchers, and media professionals alike: we must seek to balance engagement with responsibility. While the stakes are high, our influence on how we consume and contribute to the social media ecosystem can steer the conversation towards more constructive, less sensationalised discourse.
In the end, it’s about understanding that while virality might be fuelled by emotion, wisdom is rooted in balanced perspectives. As we move forward, let’s use this knowledge to build a more resilient, informed, and less polarised information landscape for ourselves—and for the generations of researchers to come.
