This work advances and tests a theory of how news information evolves as it is successively retold by consumers. Drawing on data from over 11,000 participants across ten experiments, the authors offer evidence that when news is repeatedly retold, it undergoes a stylistic transformation termed “disagreeable personalization,” wherein original facts are increasingly supplanted by opinions and interpretations with a slant toward negativity. The central thesis is that when retellers believe they are more (vs. less) knowledgeable than their recipient about the information they are relaying, they feel more compelled to provide guidance on its meaning and to do so in a persuasive manner. This enhanced motivation to guide persuasively, in turn, leads retellers to not only select the subset of facts they deem most essential but, critically, to provide their interpretations and opinions on those facts, with negativity being used as a means of grabbing their audience’s attention. Implications of this work for research on retelling and consumer information diffusion are explored.
AllportGordon W.PostmanLeo J. (1947), The Psychology of Rumor. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
2.
BaraschAlixBergerJonah (2014), “Broadcasting and Narrowcasting: How Audience Size Affects What People Share,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 286–99.
3.
BarrettJustin L.NyhofMelanie A. (2001). “Spreading Non-Natural Concepts: The Role of Intuitive Conceptual Structures in Memory Transmission of Cultural Materials,” Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1 (1), 69–100.
4.
BartlettFrederick C. (1932), Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BaumeisterRoy F.BratslavskyEllenFinkenauerCatrinVohsKathleen D. (2001), “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” Review of General Psychology, 5 (4), 323–70.
6.
BebbingtonKeelyMacLeodColinMark EllisonT.FayNicholas (2017), “The Sky Is Falling: Evidence of a Negativity Bias in the Social Transmission of Information,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 38 (1), 92–101.
7.
BergerJonah (2014), “Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication: A Review and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (4), 586–607.
8.
BergerJonahMilkmanKatherine (2011), “What Makes Online Content Viral?” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (2), 192–205.
9.
BreckEricCardieClaire (2004), “Playing the Telephone Game: Determining the Hierarchical Structure of Perspective and Speech Expressions,” in COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Geneva, Switzerland (August 23–27), 120–26.
10.
ChevalierJudith A.MayzlinDina (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 345–54.
11.
De AngelisMatteoBonezziAndreaPelusoAlessandroRuckerDerekCostabileMichele (2012), “On Braggarts and Gossips: A Self-Enhancement Account of Word-of-Mouth Generation and Transmission,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (4), 551–63.
12.
DoddsPeter S.HarrisKameron D.KloumannIsabel M.BlissCatherine A.DanforthChristopher M. (2011), “Temporal Patterns of Happiness and Information in a Global Social Network: Hedonometrics and Twitter,” PLoS One, 6 (12), e26752.
13.
DuboisDavidRuckerDerek D.TormalaZachary L. (2011), “From Rumors to Facts, and Facts to Rumors: The Role of Certainty Decay in Consumer Communications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (6), 1020–32.
14.
DudukovicNicole M.MarshElizabeth J.TverskyBarbara (2004), “Telling a Story or Telling It Straight: The Effects of Entertaining Versus Accurate Retellings on Memory,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18 (2), 125–43.
15.
FeickLawrence F.PriceLinda L. (1987), “The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (1), 83–97.
16.
FesslerDaniel M.T.PisorAnne C.NvarreteCarlos (2014), “Negatively-Biased Credulity and the Cultural Evolution of Beliefs,” PLoS One, 9 (4), e95167.
17.
GabielkovMaksymRamachandranArthimChaintreauAugustinLegoutArnud (2016), “Social Clicks: What and Who Gets Read on Twitter?” ACM Sigmetrics Performance Evaluation Review, 44 (1), 179–92.
18.
HeathChip (1996), “Do People Prefer to Pass Along Good or Bad News? Valence and Relevance as Predictors of Transmission Propensity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68 (2), 79–94.
19.
HellevikOttarBjorklundTor (1991), “Opinion Leadership and Political Extremism,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3 (2), 157–81.
20.
HymanIra E. (1994), “Conversational Remembering: Story Recall with a Peer Versus an Experimenter,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8 (1), 49–66.
21.
KashimaYoshihisa (2000), “Maintaining Cultural Stereotypes in the Serial Reproduction of Narratives,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (5), 594–604.
22.
KatzEliLazarsfeldPaul Felix (1955), Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
23.
KincaidJ. PeterFishburneRobert P.JrRogersRichard L.ChissomBrad S. (1975), “Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel,” Research Branch Report 8–75, Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis.
24.
LiJessie J.NenkovaAni (2015), “Fast and Accurate Prediction of Sentence Specificity,” Twenty-Ninth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 29 (1), 2281–87.
25.
LouisAnnieNenkovaAni (2013), “Automatically Assessing Machine Summary Content Without a Gold Standard,” Computational Linguistics, 39 (2), 267–300.
26.
MarshElizabeth (2007), “Retelling Is Not the Same as Recalling: Implications for Memory,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (1), 16–20.
27.
MesoudiAlexWhitenAndrewDunbarRobin (2006), “A Bias for Social Information in Human Cultural Transmission,” British Journal of Psychology, 97 (3), 405–23.
28.
ParkChang Sup (2013), “Does Twitter Motivate Involvement in Politics? Tweeting, Opinion Leadership, and Political Engagement,” Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1641–48.
29.
PennebakerJames W.BoydRyan L.JordanKalaBlackburnKate (2015), The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC 2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
30.
RocklageMatthew D.RuckerDerek D.NordgrenLoran F. (2018), “The Evaluative Lexicon 2.0: The Measurement of Emotionality, Extremity, and Valence in Language,” Behavior Research Methods, 50 (4), 1327–44.
31.
RoedigerHenry L.MeadeMichelle L.GalloDavid A.OlsonKristina R. (2014). “Bartlett Revisited: Direct Comparison of Repeated Reproduction and Serial Reproduction Techniques,” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3 (4), 266–27.
32.
RozinPaulRoyzmanEdward B. (2001), “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (4), 296–320.
33.
SorokaStuartFournierPatrick (2019), “Cross-National Evidence of a Negativity Bias in Psychophysiological Reactions to News,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (38), 18888–92.
34.
StapertJohn C.CloreGerald L. (1969), “Attraction and Disagreement-Produced Arousal,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 (1), 64–69.
35.
StubbersfieldJoseph M.TehraniJamie J.FlynnEmma Grace (2015), “Serial Killers, Spiders, and Cybersex: Social and Survival Information Bias in the Transmission of Urban Legends,” British Journal of Psychology, 106 (2), 288–307.
36.
TanChenhaoFriggeriAdrienAdamicLada A. (2016), “Lost in Propagation? Unfolding News Cycles from the Source,” Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 10 (1), 378–387.
37.
WilsonTheresaWiebeJanyceHoffmannPaul (2005), “Recognizing Contextual Polarity in Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, WilsonTheresaWiebeJanyceHoffmannPaul, eds. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 347–54.
38.
WinterStephanNeubaumGerman (2016). “Examining Characteristics of Opinion Leaders in Social Media: A Motivational Approach,” Social Media + Society, 2 (3), 1–12.
39.
XuJingGriffithsThomas L. (2010), “A Rational Analysis of the Effects of Memory Biases on Serial Reproduction,” Cognitive Psychology, 60 (2), 107–26.
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.
