Psychology: Why bad news dominates the headlines

导读

为什么新闻媒体总是充斥者灾难、武器、腐败等超级坏消息?难道就没什么好事发生吗?!是因为灾难性的消息更能赚足眼球、赢得关注和点击率?还是为了迎合我们对负面新闻的心理偏好?

为了找出真相,Marc Trussler和Marc Trussler在加拿大的麦吉尔大学进行了一项特殊实验。他们邀请了大学里的志愿者来实验室进行所谓的“眼球追踪研究”。这些志愿者首先被要求从新闻网站上挑选一些政治新闻,以便让相机能够做出基线眼球追踪。他们被告知要确实阅读文章以便测量,但他们阅读的内容并不重要。呵呵!但其实这是个单盲实验(单盲实验是被实验者处“盲”状态,并不知道真实测量内容),真正测量的是他们偏好阅读什么内容。实验结果到底如何呢?负面新闻是媒体之过还是大众之过?

预知结果如何,请听阿男课上分解呦!

更多剧透

第一步:解决高频单词

corruption /kə'rʌpʃ(ə)n/

n. 腐败

incompetence /ɪnˈkɔmpɪtəns/

n. 无能

concentrate /'kɒns(ə)ntreɪt/

vt. & vi. 专心于; 集中 vt. 浓缩

set up 

开始,建立

browse /braʊz/

vt. 随意翻阅,浏览

track /træk/

vt. 追踪;n. 足迹;小道

set-back 

n. 挫折; 阻碍

hypocrisy /hɪ'pɒkrɪsɪ/

n. 伪善, 虚伪

schadenfreude /'ʃɑ:dən,frɔidə/

n. 幸灾乐祸

cynicism /'sɪnɪsɪz(ə)m/

n. 愤世嫉俗

60p

第二步:精读重点段落

(Tips: 双击文中单词可以查释义并加入你的生词本哦)

[4] To explore this possibility, researchers Marc Trussler and Stuart Soroka, set up an experiment, run at McGill University in Canada. They were dissatisfied with previous research on how people relate to the news – either the studies were uncontrolled (letting people browse news at home, for example, where you can't even tell who is using the computer), or they were unrealistic (inviting them to select stories in the lab, where every participant knew their choices would be closely watched by the experimenter). So, the team decided to try a new strategy: deception.

  • set up 开始,建立
  • previous   adj. 以前的;
  • browse   vt. 随意翻阅,浏览

[7] The results of the experiment, as well as the stories that were read most, were somewhat depressing. Participants often chose stories with a negative tone – corruption, set-backs, hypocrisy and so on – rather than neutral or positive stories. People who were more interested in current affairs and politics were particularly likely to choose the bad news.

  • set-back  n. 挫折; 阻碍
  • hypocrisy  n. 伪善, 虚伪

[13] There's another interpretation that Trussler and Soroka put on their evidence: we pay attention to bad news, because on the whole, we think the world is rosier than it actually is. When it comes to our own lives, most of us believe we're better than average, and that, like the clichés, we expect things to be all right in the end. This pleasant view of the world makes bad news all the more surprising and salient. It is only against a light background that the dark spots are highlighted.

  • rosier  adj.乐观的;玫瑰色的
  • salient  adj. 显著的,重要的
85p

第三步:攻克必学语法

强调句&定语从句辨析

强调句构成:
It is/ was + 被强调部分(常为主语、宾语或状语)+ that/ who(强调主语且主语指人)+ 其他部分

原文:
[13] It is only against a light background that the dark spots are highlighted.

强调例句:
原句:She helped me yesterday.
强调主语:It was she who helped me yesterday.
强调状语:It was yesterday that she helped me.

辨析点:由it引导的句型结构,常可构成强调句或定语从句,两者易混淆。一般来说,如果将it is/was...与连接词去掉,句子仍然正确,就为强调句型。这时,就选用that连接词;否则,就为定语从句,其关系词的选择,应根据先行词与从句的关系而定。
辨析例句:
(1) It is on the island that they spent 30 years.
(2) It is the island where (on which) they spent 30 years.

比较:

(1) 该句为强调句。表示地点的名词the island前有介词与其连用,说明其为完整的地点状语。

去掉it is:They spent 30 years on the island.它的意义仍然完整。故应选用连接词that构成强调句式 (注:强调地点状语时,不可用where连接)。

(2) 该句为定语从句。表示地点的名词the island前没有介词与其连用,说明它不是一个完整的地点状语。如果将it is去掉:They spent 30 years the island.它的意义不完整。故应选用关系副词where或on which 构成定语从句结构。

每日翻译:
我决定不和Mary约会了。不是因为我不喜欢她,而是她在拿我当备胎。

100p

加分任务:精读全文

在之前的三步后,你已经完全具备了精读全文的能力。再多花半个小时,让你的学习效果达到120%!

查看/展开全文


下载音频

(Tips: 双击文中单词可以查释义并加入你的生词本哦)

Psychology: Why bad news dominates the headlines

[1] Why are newspapers and TV broadcasts filled with disaster, corruption and incompetence? It may be because we’ re drawn to depressing stories without realizing, says psychologist Tom Stafford.

  • corruption   n. 腐败
  • incompetence   n. 无能

[2] When you read the news, sometimes it can feel like the only things reported are terrible, depressing events. Why does the media concentrate on the bad things in life, rather than the good? And what might this depressing slant say about us, the audience?

  • concentrate  vt. & vi. 专心于; 集中 vt. 浓缩
  • slant   n. 倾向, 侧重

[3] It isn't that these are the only things that happen. Perhaps journalists are drawn to reporting bad news because sudden disaster is more compelling than slow improvements. Or it could be that news gatherers believe that cynical reports of corrupt politicians or unfortunate events make for simpler stories. But another strong possibility is that we, the readers or viewers, have trained journalists to focus on these things. Many people often say that they would prefer good news: but is that actually true?

[4] To explore this possibility, researchers Marc Trussler and Stuart Soroka, set up an experiment, run at McGill University in Canada. They were dissatisfied with previous research on how people relate to the news – either the studies were uncontrolled (letting people browse news at home, for example, where you can't even tell who is using the computer), or they were unrealistic (inviting them to select stories in the lab, where every participant knew their choices would be closely watched by the experimenter). So, the team decided to try a new strategy: deception.

  • set up 开始,建立
  • previous   adj. 以前的;
  • browse   vt. 随意翻阅,浏览

Trick question

[5] Trussler and Soroka invited participants from their university to come to the lab for "a study of eye tracking". The volunteers were first asked to select some stories about politics to read from a news website so that a camera could make some baseline eye-tracking measures. It was important, they were told, that they actually read the articles, so the right measurements could be prepared, but it didn't matter what they read.

  • track  vt. 追踪;n. 足迹;小道
  • baseline  n. 基线

[6] After this ‘preparation’ phase, they watched a short video (the main purpose of the experiment as far as the subjects were concerned, but it was in fact just a filler task), and then they answered questions on the kind of political news they would like to read.

  • filler  n. 补白;填充

[7] The results of the experiment, as well as the stories that were read most, were somewhat depressing. Participants often chose stories with a negative tone – corruption, set-backs, hypocrisy and so on – rather than neutral or positive stories. People who were more interested in current affairs and politics were particularly likely to choose the bad news.

  • set-back  n. 挫折; 阻碍
  • hypocrisy  n. 伪善, 虚伪

[8] And yet when asked, these people said they preferred good news. On average, they said that the media was too focused on negative stories.

Danger reaction

[9] The researchers present their experiment as solid evidence of a so called "negativity bias", psychologists' term for our collective hunger to hear, and remember bad news.

  • negativity bias消极偏见

[10] It isn't just schadenfreude, the theory goes, but that we've evolved to react quickly to potential threats. Bad news could be a signal that we need to change what we're doing to avoid danger.

  • schadenfreude  n. 幸灾乐祸

[11] As you'd expect from this theory, there's some evidence that people respond quicker to negative words. In lab experiments, flash the word “cancer”, “bomb” or “war” up at someone and they can hit a button in response quicker than if that word is “baby”, “smile” or “fun” (despite these pleasant words being slightly more common). We are also able to recognize negative words faster than positive words, and even tell that a word is going to be unpleasant before we can tell exactly what the word is going to be.

[12] So is our vigilance for threats the only way to explain our predilection for bad news? Perhaps not.

  • vigilance   n. 警觉;警惕;
  • predilection  n. 偏爱,偏好

[13] There's another interpretation that Trussler and Soroka put on their evidence: we pay attention to bad news, because on the whole, we think the world is rosier than it actually is. When it comes to our own lives, most of us believe we're better than average, and that, like the clichés, we expect things to be all right in the end. This pleasant view of the world makes bad news all the more surprising and salient. It is only against a light background that the dark spots are highlighted.

  • rosier  adj.乐观的;玫瑰色的
  • salient  adj. 显著的,重要的

[14] So our attraction to bad news may be more complex than just journalistic cynicism or a hunger springing from the darkness within.

  • cynicism  n. 愤世嫉俗

[15] And that, on another bad news day, gives me a little bit of hope for hum

200p

corruption /kə'rʌpʃ(ə)n/

n. 腐败

incompetence /ɪnˈkɔmpɪtəns/

n. 无能

concentrate /'kɒns(ə)ntreɪt/

vt. & vi. 专心于; 集中 vt. 浓缩

set up 

开始,建立

browse /braʊz/

vt. 随意翻阅,浏览

track /træk/

vt. 追踪;n. 足迹;小道

set-back 

n. 挫折; 阻碍

hypocrisy /hɪ'pɒkrɪsɪ/

n. 伪善, 虚伪

schadenfreude /'ʃɑ:dən,frɔidə/

n. 幸灾乐祸

cynicism /'sɪnɪsɪz(ə)m/

n. 愤世嫉俗

不要一时兴起,就要天天在一起

明天见!


下载音频

Psychology: Why bad news dominates the headlines

[1] Why are newspapers and TV broadcasts filled with disaster, corruption and incompetence? It may be because we’re drawn to depressing stories without realizing, says psychologist Tom Stafford.

[2] When you read the news, sometimes it can feel like the only things reported are terrible, depressing events. Why does the media concentrate on the bad things in life, rather than the good? And what might this depressing slant say about us, the audience?

[3] It isn't that these are the only things that happen. Perhaps journalists are drawn to reporting bad news because sudden disaster is more compelling than slow improvements. Or it could be that news gatherers believe that cynical reports of corrupt politicians or unfortunate events make for simpler stories. But another strong possibility is that we, the readers or viewers, have trained journalists to focus on these things. Many people often say that they would prefer good news: but is that actually true?

[4] To explore this possibility, researchers Marc Trussler and Stuart Soroka, set up an experiment, run at McGill University in Canada. They were dissatisfied with previous research on how people relate to the news – either the studies were uncontrolled (letting people browse news at home, for example, where you can't even tell who is using the computer), or they were unrealistic (inviting them to select stories in the lab, where every participant knew their choices would be closely watched by the experimenter). So, the team decided to try a new strategy: deception.

Trick question

[5] Trussler and Soroka invited participants from their university to come to the lab for "a study of eye tracking". The volunteers were first asked to select some stories about politics to read from a news website so that a camera could make some baseline eye-tracking measures. It was important, they were told, that they actually read the articles, so the right measurements could be prepared, but it didn't matter what they read.

[6] After this ‘preparation’ phase, they watched a short video (the main purpose of the experiment as far as the subjects were concerned, but it was in fact just a filler task), and then they answered questions on the kind of political news they would like to read.

[7] The results of the experiment, as well as the stories that were read most, were somewhat depressing. Participants often chose stories with a negative tone – corruption, set-backs, hypocrisy and so on – rather than neutral or positive stories. People who were more interested in current affairs and politics were particularly likely to choose the bad news.

[8] And yet when asked, these people said they preferred good news. On average, they said that the media was too focussed on negative stories.

Danger reaction

[9] The researchers present their experiment as solid evidence of a so called "negativity bias", psychologists' term for our collective hunger to hear, and remember bad news.

[10] It isn't just schadenfreude, the theory goes, but that we've evolved to react quickly to potential threats. Bad news could be a signal that we need to change what we're doing to avoid danger.

[11] As you'd expect from this theory, there's some evidence that people respond quicker to negative words. In lab experiments, flash the word “cancer”, “bomb” or “war” up at someone and they can hit a button in response quicker than if that word is “baby”, “smile” or “fun” (despite these pleasant words being slightly more common). We are also able to recognize negative words faster than positive words, and even tell that a word is going to be unpleasant before we can tell exactly what the word is going to be.

[12] So is our vigilance for threats the only way to explain our predilection for bad news? Perhaps not.

[13] There's another interpretation that Trussler and Soroka put on their evidence: we pay attention to bad news, because on the whole, we think the world is rosier than it actually is. When it comes to our own lives, most of us believe we're better than average, and that, like the clichés, we expect things to be all right in the end. This pleasant view of the world makes bad news all the more surprising and salient. It is only against a light background that the dark spots are highlighted.

[14] So our attraction to bad news may be more complex than just journalistic cynicism or a hunger springing from the darkness within.

[15] And that, on another bad news day, gives me a little bit of hope for humanity.

下载PDF版