The influence of daily news exposure on emotional states: Making us unhappy

Is the news making us unhappy? The influence of daily news exposure on emotional states. Natascha de Hoog, Peter Verboon. British Journal of Psychology, March 21 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12389

Abstract: There is evidence that exposure to negative news is making people feel bad, but not much is known about why this only affects some people or whether this also applies to everyday news exposure. This study examined the direct and indirect effects of daily news exposure on people's affective states. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), 63 respondents (24 men and 39 women) reported their news exposure and affective states five times a day for 10 days. In addition, personal relevance of the news and personality characteristics, neuroticism and extraversion, were assessed. Results showed that negative news perceptions were related to more negative affect and less positive affect, and these effects were moderated by personal relevance, but not personality characteristics. The implications of these outcomes are discussed.

Background

These days, news seems to be everywhere. People can be updated about the latest developments in the world during the entire day and seven days a week. News is not only received by television, newspapers, and through online news coverage, but also through social media. Even people who do not follow regular news updates can still be confronted by news events through the people they follow on social media (Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock, 2014). Even though news facts can have positive, neutral, or negative content, the majority of news coverage concerns topics with a negative valence (Haskins, Miller, & Quarles, 1984; Zillmann, Chen, Knobloch, & Callison, 2004), including topics like natural disasters, crime, the bad economy, terrorism, or war. Not only is the majority of news topics negative, people also tend to pay more attention to negative news (Zillmann et al., 2004). In addition, the majority of negative news coverage is directed towards people's emotions (Philo, 2002), and the sensationalism and confronting nature of news coverage have increased drastically over the last decades (Wang, 2012).

All this exposure to negative information about the state of the world is likely to have an impact on our state of mind, our moods, or even our general happiness (Galician, 1986). Surprisingly, not much research has been conducted on this topic. Even though there are many studies on news perception, the focus has mainly been on cognition, with studies looking at information processing and memory (Gerend & Sias, 2009), as well as framing (Sun, Krakow, John, Liu, & Weaver, 2016), and motivation (Lee & Chyi, 2014) or attitudes (Hollbert, Zeng, & Robinson, 2017), while the topic of emotions has received much less attention. When emotions do play a role, studies usually focus on emotions used in news (Brosius, 1993), rather than as an outcome of news exposure.

The studies available on the relationship between news exposure and affect do generally support the notion that exposure to news reports affects our moods and state of mind. More specifically, a direct relationship between negative news exposure and negative emotional states was found in a number of experimental studies (Balzarotti & Cicero, 2014; Johnston & Davey, 1997; Marin et al., 2012; McIntyre & Gibson, 2016; Szabo & Hopkinson, 2007; Unz, Schwab, & Winterhoff‐Spurk, 2008; Veitch & Griffitt, 1976). After being exposed to negative news reports, positive affect decreased, whereas negative affect, sadness, worries, and anxiety increased. Other studies have found indirect effects on psychological distress and negative affect through an increase in stress levels and irrational beliefs (McNaughton‐Cassill, 2001) or depression (Potts & Sanchez, 1994).

Non‐experimental research on the topic has mainly focused on the impact of very severe news events, like terrorist attacks. A study on the Boston Marathon terrorist attack (Holman, Garfin, & Silver, 2014) showed people's stress levels were higher after exposure to news about the attack for four weeks compared to stress levels right after the attack. Similarly, PTSD was found to increase after continuous news exposure about the 9/11 attacks (Ahern, Galea, Resnick, & Vlahov, 2004; Piotrkowski & Brannen, 2002). Similar findings are reported in studies on anthrax attacks (Dougall, Hayward, & Baum, 2005), children exposed to news about terror attacks (Pfefferbaum et al., 2002), and news coverage on infectious diseases like SARS (Hansen, 2009).

Thus, there is empirical evidence that exposure to negative news is making one feel bad, but why is that? Does this also apply to everyday news exposure? And does this affect everyone in the same way? The present research attempts to answer these questions by looking into the direct and indirect effects of daily news exposure on people's emotional states.
Theoretical background

Despite a number of studies on the impact of negative news exposure on emotional states, no theoretical explanation has been proposed for this effect. We postulate that cognitive appraisal theory might be a relevant framework in this context. Negative news can be seen as a stressor that needs to be evaluated and reacted to. As argued by cognitive appraisal theory (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), when someone is exposed to a stressor, the stressor is appraised in order to elicit an appropriate emotional response. The cognitive appraisal process consists of two parts: (1) primary appraisal in which one establishes the importance (severity and relevance) of the stressor and (2) secondary appraisal that assesses the ability to cope with the stressor (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In other words, when confronted with news reports, someone (1) evaluates the valence and severity of the stressor (e.g., negative and very serious) as well as the extent to which the news affects them (e.g., very relevant) and (2) whether this news is something within or beyond their control (e.g., little control). Together, this determines the affective response that follows.

When it comes to appraisal of news stories, we propose it is mainly primary appraisal that is of importance. Most news events are likely to be perceived as outside the person's control (Kleemans, de Leeuw, Gerritsen, & Buijzen, 2017; Maguen, Papa, & Litz, 2008), making secondary appraisal less relevant to investigate as it is unlikely to vary much from person to person. For example, news about wars, poverty, and the recession are all things a recipient cannot change or has any influence over. However, people tend to differ in how severe they perceive certain news facts, and they especially differ in personal relevance. This is amplified by later theories of cognitive appraisal (Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Kirby, 2000) that have argued it is mainly the extent to which a stressor is personally relevant to someone that affects the intensity of the emotions elicited by a stressor. The importance of personal relevance was also established in a broad range of studies, showing personal relevance as an important factor when it comes to attention to, processing of, and evaluation of information (Balzarotti & Cicero, 2014; De Hoog, 2013; Van t Riet, Ruiter, & De Vries, 2012). More specially, studies on news perception have found personal relevance to be a moderator of the effect of news valence on affective response (Balzarotti & Cicero, 2014; Marshall et al., 2007).

This corresponds with the notion of information processing theories (Chen, Duckworth, & Chaiken, 1999) that personal relevance is a crucial factor in determining how critical and intensive information is processed and evaluated. In dual process models (Evans & Frankish, 2012), as well as in later versions of cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991), the relationship between cognitions and affect is seen as a continuous bidirectional process, wherein cognitions about information affect emotions that in turn affect cognitions about the information. People who are exposed to similar news information on a daily basis can end up in a downward spiral of appraisals leading to negative affect, negative affect leading to more negative appraisals of the news etc., which might explain why studies on continuous exposure to news about terrorist attacks found people felt worse after weeks of exposure than just after the fact (Ahern et al., 2004). It also corresponds with studies showing people who are anxious or depressed are more likely to focus on negative information or information that corresponds with their mental state (Davey & Wells, 2006), which in turn only increases their anxiousness or depression. It has to be pointed out that some studies have found the opposite effect, with people selecting to read news stories that are contrary to their current mood (Biswas, Riffe, & Zillmann, 1994; Kaspar, Ramos Gameiro, & König, 2015).

Even though daily exposure to negative news can affect people negatively, not everyone is affected in the same way. While some people feel the burden of all that is wrong in the world, others seem to be able to brush it off and remain rather unaffected emotionally by the media they consume (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Individual differences in the cognitive appraisal process can partly explain this (Gross & John, 2003; Kuppens & Tong, 2010; Scherer, 2001), as studies have shown people with certain traits appraise situations differently and have dissimilar affective responses to stressors (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Tong, 2010).

Two personality characteristics that are especially relevant when it comes to appraisal and reactions to negative news are neuroticism (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Tong, 2010) and extraversion (Gallagher, 1990; Rafienia, Azadfallah, Fathi‐Ashtiani, & Rasoulzadeh‐Tabatabaiei, 2008). Neuroticism is the general tendency to react in an anxious and negative matter to everyday stressors. Neuroticism has been linked to heightened negative affect, anxiety, and fear, as well as a general lower well‐being. In addition, neuroticism has been shown to negatively affect the primary appraisal process (Oliver & Brough, 2002), with people high in neuroticism reacting more strongly and negatively to stressors than people low in neuroticism (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Tong, 2010). Thus, it was expected they would perceive news as more negative and feel more personally affected by it. Extroverts are known to be social, impulsive, optimistic, and easy‐going (Sanderman, Arrindell, Ranchor, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 2012). More specifically, extroverts report higher well‐being and experience more positive affect and less negative affect than introverts (Gallagher, 1990; Stafford, Ng, Moore, & Bard, 2010). In addition, extraversion is related to lower stress and fear levels (Penley & Tomaka, 2002). Indirectly, extraversion has been shown to be a moderator in the affective processing of information as well as the influence of affect on cognition (Rafienia et al., 2008; Stafford et al., 2010). Thus, it was expected they would perceive news as less negative.

The present research

So far, studies have shown that exposure to negative news reports can negatively affect one's emotional state, but these studies have mainly been experimental in nature or have focused on very serious events, like terrorist attacks. Not much is known about the effect of daily exposure to everyday news and why some people are more affected by news exposure than others. More research is needed into the possible negative effects of daily news exposure and the conditions under which they occur. Therefore, the present research looks at the direct and indirect effects of daily news exposure on people's emotional states.

The design of the study was derived from ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methodology (Conner, Tennen, Fleeson, & Barrett, 2009), and, to our knowledge, it is the first study that looks at the effects of news perception on emotional states using an intensive longitudinal design. This method uses a structured diary‐type set‐up used to assess people's thoughts, moods, and the exact context in real time, for a certain period of time, and has been shown to be very effective in capturing people's daily reality (Myin‐Germeys et al., 2009). Benefits of this method also include the minimization of bias in recall compared to assessments of mood and emotional states by traditional methods. In addition, compared to experimental studies, this method increases ecological validity, while also being able to assess causal effects.

The aim of the present study was to examine whether daily exposure to negative news would negatively affect people's emotional states. It was also explored whether personal relevance, extraversion, and neuroticism moderated this effect. We expected daily exposure to negative everyday news to affect emotional states. More specifically, we expected a positive relationship between how negative the news was perceived to be and negative affect (and a negative relationship for positive affect; hypothesis 1). In addition, we expected the impact of negative news on emotional states to be stronger when personal relevance is high (hypothesis 2), and for people who score high on neuroticism (hypothesis 3) or low on extraversion (hypothesis 4).


Discussion

The present study adds to the growing amount of literature on the effects of media exposure on well‐being and emotional states. The main aim of this study was to examine daily, everyday news exposure by testing whether negative affect and positive affect were influenced by daily news perceptions. In addition, we tested whether personal relevance of the news moderated the effect of the news perception and whether the personal difference variables, neuroticism and extraversion, were relevant in these associations. As expected, it was found that when daily news was perceived as more negative, people reported more negative affect and less positive affect. This corresponds with previous experimental studies (Balzarotti & Cicero, 2014; McIntyre & Gibson, 2016; Szabo & Hopkinson, 2007), as well as cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies on severe news facts (Ahern et al., 2004; Dougall et al., 2005; Holman et al., 2014). The results of the present study add to these findings by showing these same effects are found when looking at daily exposure to everyday news. Thus, news does not have to be very severe or shocking for people to be affected by it emotionally.

In addition, it was found that when personal relevance of the news was high, the reported negative affect also tended to be higher, stressing the importance of personal relevance in general and in appraisal of news especially (Balzarotti & Cicero, 2014; De Hoog, 2013; Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Kirby, 2000). Moreover, as expected, personal relevance of the news moderated the association of news valence on reported negative affect and positive affect, respectively, with negative news having a stronger impact on affect when personal relevance was high. This is in line with studies on news perception showing personal relevance to be an important moderator (Balzarotti & Cicero, 2014; Marshall et al., 2007).

These findings support cognitive appraisal theory (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) as a relevant framework for explaining the effect of news perception on emotional states. As we postulated, when exposed to news facts, primary appraisal takes places, wherein someone assesses the severity and relevance of the news facts that in turn affect the emotional response. As the findings of the present study show, the more severe the news was perceived and the higher perceptions of personal relevance, the stronger the affective response. Although not the main focus of our study, additional analyses also showed support for our reasoning that when it comes to everyday news, secondary appraisal in the form of coping with the stressor plays a much smaller role, as most news stories are seen as outside of the person's control. Indeed, no direct or indirect effect of coping on affect was found, besides a small direct effect of coping on positive affect. Following the reasoning of cognitive appraisal theory, this implies that in order for people to be less affected by news exposure, the news either needs to be perceived as less severe or more under people's control. One way to achieve this could be for the media to stop stressing the negativity and severity of daily news and to provide more information about how people could cope with certain information, a concept recently described as constructive journalism (McIntyre & Gibson, 2016). Even though viewers might not have much control over the news, they do have control over how they cope with their emotional responses. Further studies should therefore look into the role of emotion‐focused coping in news exposure.

Because not everyone is affected in the same way by news exposure (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013), and individual differences seem to play an important role in this (Gross & John, 2003; Kuppens & Tong, 2010; Scherer, 2001), we explored the importance of two personality characteristics, namely neuroticism and extraversion (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Gallagher, 1990; Tong, 2010). Neuroticism had a relatively large effect on both affect measures. People with higher scores on neuroticism reported more negative and less positive affect. However, even though neuroticism had a large effect on affect in general, neuroticism did not moderate the effect of news exposure on affect, nor did it affect perceptions of personal relevance. In addition, extraversion only was a moderator for positive affect. Even though previous studies have established the role of both personality factors in affective responses (Rafienia et al., 2008; Stafford et al., 2010), neither seems to have a strong effect on people's news perception. Extraversion makes people exposed to negative news have more positive affect, but not less negative affect. This seems to imply that extraverts still have the same response of negative emotions to exposure to negative news as everyone else, but they just do not let it affect their positive emotions. Neuroticism just makes people experience more negative affect in general (Bolger & Schilling, 1991).
Limitations and recommendations

Even though the results of this study show important insight into the effect of daily, everyday news exposure on affective responses, some limitations need to be mentioned. First of all, a convenience sample was used in this study, limiting the generalizability of the results. The sample had a representative distribution of gender and age, but mainly included people with a higher education. Thus, the sample was not very representative of the Dutch population. Future studies should attempt to use a more representative sample of people, especially to establish news effects in lower educated people. Secondly, even though we used an intensive longitudinal design (Conner et al., 2009) that is known for being able to capture people's daily experiences effectively, as well as minimizes bias and has more ecological validity than experimental studies (Myin‐Germeys et al., 2009), it is also a very intensive research method asking a lot of the investment of participants. As a consequence, compliance with the study instructions in EMA studies is known to be less than in cross‐sectional surveys. However, enough data points to detect moderate‐to‐large effects were still available to produce valid results when using ESM data (Delespaul, 1995). Thirdly, because we wanted to limit the burden of participants, we restricted the number of items to measure the relevant constructs. Even though some of these measures have been validated (Van der Steen et al., 2017) or appear to be reliable measures, we cannot be certain that personal relevance, which was assessed with a single item, was measured reliably. In future studies, a more extensive and reliable measure of personal relevance needs to be used.

This study is the first, to our knowledge, that looks at the effect of everyday news exposure, using an intensive longitudinal design (Conner et al., 2009). More research should be conducted using these – or similar – designs in order to truly capture the continuous nature of news exposure. These days, people do not just read or watch single news reports, but they are constantly exposed to news information, and the way we research this phenomenon should reflect the research designs we use. In addition, more research is needed into possible moderating or mediating factors. A clear picture that comes from this study, as well as previous studies, is that news exposure can negatively affect our moods; however, not enough is known about why some people are more affected by this than others.

So far, we know that factors that are important are personal relevance, but more individual difference measures need to be explored in order to get a better picture. Some interesting variables to consider include traits that could possibly affect how the news is perceived like locus of control (Bollini, Walker, Hamann, & Kestler, 2004) or optimism (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012), and specific variables related to cognitive appraisal and emotional responses such as coping style (Ben‐Zur, 2009), affective self‐regulatory efficacy (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003), or emotion regulation (Gross & John, 2003). Besides individual differences, social influences should be considered. How news is received and perceived has a lot to do with one's social surroundings, like indirect news exposure through social media (Kramer et al., 2014). Surprisingly, relatively little research has been done on the role of social influence, like peer groups or social identity, in the effects of media exposure (Valkenburg, Peter, & Walther, 2016).

In conclusion, the present study showed the effect of daily news exposure on negative and positive affect and explored possible moderators. Negative news perception is related to more negative affect and less positive affect, and these effects are moderated by personal relevance. Thus, daily exposure to everyday news facts makes people feel bad, especially when they consider the news to be personally relevant. These results implicate we need to look more carefully at the way (negative) news is presented in the media, as well as the frequency of exposure to the news, in order to prevent people from being negatively affected by it.