By adopting the uses and gratifications approach to understand two evolutionary needs—the environmental surveillance need and social involvement need—this study investigated the use of alarm and prosocial words in news headlines and the associated generic digital footprints. We analyzed over 170,000 online news headlines and the number of associated clicks and “likes” for each news story on an online news platform. Our results support the idea of a human alarm system for sensational news as a psychological survival mechanism designed to detect and pay attention to threatening news such as catastrophes and diseases. News headlines with alarm words indirectly attracted more “likes,” indicating a concern with survival, through an increased number of clicks to select that news item. Furthermore, the results of a conditional indirect effect model showed that while online readers selectively clicked on news headlines with alarm words, the presence of a prosocial word in the headline increased the likelihood that readers would “like” it.
ArbaouiB.De SwertK.van der BrugW. (2016). Sensationalism in news coverage: A comparative study in 14 television systems. Communication Research, 47, 299-320. doi:10.1177/0093650216663364
2.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323
3.
BennettR.KottaszR. (2000). Emergency fund-raising for disaster relief. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 9, 352-360. doi:10.1108/09653560010361393
4.
BlumlerJ. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9-36. doi:10.1177/009365027900600102
5.
BoydR.RichersonP. J. (1989). The evolution of indirect reciprocity. Social Networks, 11, 213-236. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(89)90003-8
6.
BurgersC.de GraafA. (2013). Language intensity as a sensationalistic news feature: The influence of style on sensationalism perceptions and effects. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 38, 167-188. doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0010
7.
CheungW.-L.JakS. (2016). Analyzing big data in psychology: A split/analyze/meta-analyze approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00738
8.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
9.
DavisH.McLeodS. L. (2003). Why humans value sensational news: An evolutionary perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 208-216. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00012-6
10.
DehghaniM.JohnsonK.HooverJ.SagiE.GartenJ.ParmarN. J.. . . GrahamJ. (2016). Purity homophily in social networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 366-375. doi:10.1037/xge0000139
11.
DorD. (2003). On newspaper headlines as relevance optimizers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 695-721. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00134-0
12.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.ChangE. P.PillaiR. (2014). The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 323-335. doi:10.1037/xap0000028
13.
EichstaedtJ. C.SchwartzH. A.KernM. L.ParkG.LabartheD. R.MerchantR. M.. . . SeligmanM. E. P. (2015). Psychological language on Twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality. Psychological Science, 26, 159-169. doi:10.1177/0956797614557867
14.
EisenbergerN. I.LiebermanM. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 294-300. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.010
15.
EisenbergerN. I.LiebermanM. D.WilliamsK. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292. doi:10.1126/science.1089134
16.
FrimerJ. A.SchaeferN. K.OakesH. (2014). Moral actor, selfish agent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 790-802. doi:10.1037/a0036040
17.
GaltungJ.RugeM. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64-90. doi:10.1177/002234336500200104
18.
GanC. (2017). Understanding WeChat users’ liking behavior: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 30-39. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.002
19.
GoetzJ. L.KeltnerD.Simon-ThomasE. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351-374. doi:10.1037/a0018807
20.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
21.
HamiltonW. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
22.
HamiltonW. D. (1964b). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17-52. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6
23.
HarcupT. O.NeillD. (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies, 2, 261-280. doi:10.1080/14616700118449
24.
HarcupT. O.NeillD. (2017). What is news? News values revisited (again). Journalism Studies, 18, 1470-1488. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
Hendriks VettehenP.NuijtenK.BeentjesJ. (2005). News in an age of competition: The case of sensationalism in Dutch television news, 1995-2001. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 282-295. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4903
27.
Hendriks VettehenP.NuijtenK.PeetersA. (2008). Explaining effects of sensationalism on liking of television news stories: The role of emotional arousal. Communication Research, 35, 319-338. doi:10.1177/0093650208315960
28.
HennighausenC.SchwabF. (2015). Evolutionary media psychology and its epistemological foundation. In T. Breyer (Ed.), Epistemological dimensions of evolutionary psychology (pp. 131-158). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1387-9_7
29.
HongC.ChenZ.LiC. (2017). “Liking” and being “liked”: How are personality traits and demographics associated with giving and receiving “likes” on Facebook?Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 292-299. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.048
30.
IfantidouE. (2009). Newspaper headlines and relevance: ad hoc concepts in ad hoc contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 699-720. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.016
31.
IrelandM. E.SchwartzH. A.ChenQ.UngarL. H.AlbarracínD. (2015). Future-oriented tweets predict lower county-level HIV prevalence in the United States. Health Psychology, 34, 1252-1260. doi:10.1037/hea0000279
32.
ItoT. A.LarsenJ. T.SmithN. K.CacioppoJ. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887
33.
JASP Team. (2017). JASP (Version 0.8.4) [Computer software]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
34.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509-523. doi:10.1086/268109
35.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In BlumlerJ. G.KatzE. (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
KatzE.HaasH.GurevitchM. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181. doi:10.2307/2094393
37.
KeltnerD.KoganA.PiffP. K.SaturnS. R. (2014). The sociocultural appraisals, values, and emotions (SAVE) framework of prosociality: Core processes from gene to meme. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 425-460. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115054
KernM. L.ParkG.EichstaedtJ. C.SchwartzH. A.SapM.SmithL. K.UngarL. H. (2016). Gaining insights from social media language: Methodologies and challenges. Psychological Methods, 21, 507-525. doi:10.1037/met0000091
40.
KilgoD. K.HarlowS.García-PerdomoV.SalaverríaR. (2016). A new sensation? An international exploration of sensationalism and social media recommendations in online news publications. Journalism, 19, 1497-1516. doi:10.1177/1464884916683549
41.
Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2015). The selective exposure self- and affect-management (SESAM) model: Applications in the realms of race, politics, and health. Communication Research, 42, 959-985. doi:10.1177/0093650214539173
42.
KosinskiM.StillwellD.GraepelT. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 5802-5805. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218772110
43.
KurzbanR.Burton-ChellewM. N.WestS. A. (2015). The evolution of altruism in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 575-599. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015355
44.
LewisD. M. G.Al-ShawafL.Conroy-BeamD.AsaoK.BussD. M. (2017). Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist, 72, 353-373. doi:10.1037/a0040409
45.
LinM.LucasH. C.ShmueliG. (2013). Too big to fail: Large samples and the p-value problem. Information Systems Research, 24, 906-917. doi:10.1287/isre.2013.0480
46.
MacKinnonD. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
MartinJ. A. (2013). Disasters and donations: The conditional effects of news attention on charitable giving. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25, 547-560. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds044
48.
MatthesJ. (2005). The need for orientation towards news media: Revising and validating a classic concept. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 422-444. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh118
49.
McAndrewF. T. (2012). New evolutionary perspectives on altruism: Multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 79-82. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00173
50.
MishraS. (2014). Decision-making under risk: Integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 280-307. doi:10.1177/1088868314530517
51.
MishraS.BarclayP.SparksA. (2017). The relative state model: Integrating need-based and ability-based pathways to risk-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 176-198. doi:10.1177/1088868316644094
52.
NeyeloffJ. L.FuchsS. C.MoreiraL. B. (2012). Meta-analyses and forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: Step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Research Notes, 5, Article 52. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-52
53.
NgY.-L. (2016). More than social–cultural influences: A research agenda for evolutionary perspectives on prosocial media effects. Review of General Psychology, 20, 317-335. doi:10.1037/gpr0000084
54.
OlkinI.SampsonA. (1998). Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics, 54, 317-322. doi:10.2307/2534018
55.
OosterhofL.HeuvelmanA.PetersO. (2009). Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 148-157. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.10.006
56.
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.JordanK.BlackburnK. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
57.
PennerL. A.DovidioJ. F.PiliavinJ. A.SchroederD. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
58.
PiazzaJ. R.IngramG. P. D. (2009). Evolutionary cyber-psychology: Applying an evolutionary framework to Internet behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1258-1269. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.002
59.
PiazzaJ. R.IngramG. P. D. (2015). Evolutionary cyberpsychology 2.0: Revisiting some old predictions and posting some new ones in the age of Facebook. In Zeigler-HillV.WellingL. M.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology (pp. 159-174). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_13.
60.
PreacherK. J.KelleyK. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93-115. doi:10.1037/a0022658
61.
RuggieroT. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 3-37. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
62.
SchultzI. (2007). The journalistic gut feeling: Journalistic doxa, news habitus and orthodox news values. Journalism Practice, 1, 190-207. doi:10.1080/17512780701275507
63.
SeoM.SunS.MerollaA. J.ZhangS. (2012). Willingness to help following the Sichuan earthquake: Modeling the effects of media involvement, stress, trust, and relational resources. Communication Research, 39, 3-25. doi:10.1177/0093650210388407
64.
ShermanL. E.PaytonA. A.HernandezL. M.GreenfieldP. M.DaprettoM. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence: Effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychological Science, 27, 1027-1035. doi:10.1177/0956797616645673
65.
SherryJ. L. (2004). Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overview and directions for future research. Media Psychology, 6, 83-109. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0601_4
66.
ShoemakerP. (1996). Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication, 46, 32-47. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01487.x
67.
ShoemakerP.ReeseS. (2014). Mediating the message in the 21st century: A media sociology perspective (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
68.
StancaL.GuiM.GallucciM. (2013). Attracted but unsatisfied: The effects of sensational content on television consumption choices. Journal of Media Economics, 26, 82-97. doi:10.1080/08997764.2013.785552
69.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54. doi:10.1177/0261927X09351676
70.
TomaselloM. (2014). The ultra-social animal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 187-194. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2015
71.
TriversR. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57. doi:10.1086/406755
72.
VaishA.GrossmannT.WoodwardA. (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 383-403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383
73.
ValenzuelaS.BachmannI.AguilarM. (2016). Socialized for news media use: How family communication, information-processing needs, and gratifications determine adolescents exposure to news. Communication Research, 46, 1095-1118. doi:10.1177/0093650215623833
74.
van den BosK.HamJ.LindE. A.SimonisM.van EssenW. J.RijpkemaM. (2008). Justice and the human alarm system: The impact of exclamation points and flashing lights on the justice judgment process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 201-219. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.03.001
75.
WeaverD. H. (1980). Audience need for orientation and media effects. Communication Research, 7, 361-373. doi:10.1177/009365028000700305
76.
WenZ.FanX. (2015). Monotonicity of effect sizes: Questioning kappa-squared as mediation effect size measure. Psychological Methods, 20, 193-203. doi:10.1037/met0000029
77.
YouyouW.KosinskiM.StillwellD. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1036-1040. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418680112
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206. doi:10.1086/651257
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
