It’s a relatively new field, the study of human choices regarding news and multi-format media. That said, a new University of Pennsylvania study, compiled with data from The New York Times, attempts to draw conclusions about just that.
To make sense of these trends in “virality,” the Penn researchers tracked more than 7,500 articles published from August 2008 to February 2009. They assessed each article’s popularity after controlling for factors like the time of day it was published online, the section in which it appeared and how much promotion it received on the Web home page.
A random sample of 3,000 of these articles was rated by independent readers for qualities like providing practical value or being surprising. The researchers also used computer algorithms to track the ratio of emotional words in an article and to assess the relative positivity or negativity.
The computer textual analysis could identify “affect-laden” articles like “Redefining Depression as Mere Sadness” or “When All Else Fails, Blaming the Patient Often Comes Next.” It distinguished positive articles like “Wide-Eyed New Arrivals Falling in Love With the City” from downers like “Germany: Baby Polar Bear’s Feeder Dies.”
More emotional stories were more likely to be e-mailed, the researchers found, and positive articles were shared more than negative ones.
Duh? Maybe, but who cares! Positivity win. It’s nice to see that positivity knows no political boundaries – the article, which you can read HERE, goes on to explain that “awe-inspiring” articles fared much better than articles that might be construed as “anxiety-causing”.
Super,
Chris
Recent Comments