Sticks and stones ...
Can dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric from our politicians really harm us?
As the political temperature continues to rise, attention has turned to the language used during debates. We hear accusations of “dangerous rhetoric” and “inflammatory” language. What are the psychological consequences of exposure to such negativity?
The most common reaction is avoidance because our fear of feeling distressed is even more powerful than our desire to feel good. Known as the negativity bias, it has persisted as a survival mechanism.
Relationship psychologist John Gottman knows its power — he claims a relationship can flourish only when positive interactions outnumber negative encounters by at least five to one.
When we hear distressing news, our first reaction is often illogical: We take a dislike to the messenger rather than to the information itself. This was made clear when Leslie John and colleagues at Harvard presented participants with positive or negative information, for example that they’d won or lost money.
In every scenario, participants rated the messenger as more likable and competent when news was good or neutral, but dislikable and less competent when the information was distressing.
Furthermore, negativity sticks. Ebbe Ebbesen at the University of California, San Diego found if we like someone on first meeting, that fondness is open to change and usually becomes increasingly positive when we spend more time together. However, if we dislike someone initially (even if our reaction is illogical), that dislike remains constant however much time we spend with them. It seems we’re open to new information if we approve of another person, but we ignore it if we dislike them.
These studies should serve as a warning to anyone who tries to frighten or upset others — they, rather than their message, may become the target of intractable repugnance.
When humans feel threatened, they become either frightened or angry. The physiological response is similar in both cases, so the label we choose is critical in determining what we do next. Jennifer Lerner, then at Carnegie Mellon University, demonstrated this when she presented participants with news clips designed either to induce anger or create fear. She then asked everyone to estimate risk in various situations. Angry participants were more willing to take risks and felt more certain of success, whereas fearful participants overestimated risk and were significantly more cautious.
Using powerful negative terminology may therefore backfire because it can lead to unintended, unpredictable and sometimes undesired consequences. But what if you’re on the receiving end of negativity? How can you ensure you’ll deal with it wisely? First, allow your emotions to settle. Avoid reacting to the messenger, and instead, focus entirely on the validity of the information.
Only then should you decide how to respond.
London Daily Telegraph