Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences
Abstract
This book explores the political implications of the human tendency to prioritize negative information over positive information. Drawing on literatures in political science, psychology, economics, communications, biology, and physiology, this book argues that 'negativity biases' should be evident across a wide range of political behaviors. These biases are then demonstrated through a diverse and cross-disciplinary set of analyses, for instance: in citizens' ratings of presidents and prime ministers; in aggregate-level reactions to economic news, across 17 countries; in the relationship between covers and newsmagazine sales; and in individuals' physiological reactions to network news content. The pervasiveness of negativity biases extends, this book suggests, to the functioning of political institutions - institutions that have been designed to prioritize negative information in the same way as the human brain.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Political judgment is subject to a negativity bias.
“There is ample evidence that political judgment is subject to a negativity bias (Soroka 2014), implying that party polarization is driven by out-group hostility.”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Soroka 2014
Negative information may exert greater effect on attitudes than positive information.
“a vast literature on the concept of negativity bias (e.g. Soroka 2014) suggests negative information may exert greater effect on attitudes than positive information.”
From Them’ without ‘us’: Negative identities and affective polarization in Brazil (2022) · cites this paper as Soroka 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news
Soroka, S., Fournier, P., & Nir, L. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1908369116 · Cited by 465 · see citing works
Self-citationNews, Politics, and Negativity
Soroka, S., & McAdams, S. (2015) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.881942 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Self-citationConsumer Demand for Cynical and Negative News Frames
Trussler, M., & Soroka, S. (2014) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161214524832 · Cited by 334 · see citing works
Self-citationBad News or Mad News? Sentiment Scoring of Negativity, Fear, and Anger in News Content
Soroka, S., Young, L., & Balmas, M. (2015) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716215569217 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationNegative online news articles are shared more to social media
Watson, J., van der Linden, S., Watson, M., & Stillwell, D. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71263-z · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Them’ without ‘us’: Negative identities and affective polarization in Brazil
Areal, J. (2022) · Political Research Exchange · doi:10.1080/2474736x.2022.2117635 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Soroka, S. N.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Soroka, Stuart N.
- ORCID
- Soroka, Stuart N.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2014-04-07
- OpenAlex
- W4237408291
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 30.13
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Keywords
- negativity bias, negative information, political behavior, news media, political institutions, business news, political psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
