IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v41y2021i1p179-203.html

The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts

Author

Listed:
  • Sudeep Bhatia
  • Lukasz Walasek
  • Paul Slovic
  • Howard Kunreuther

Abstract

Considerable amount of laboratory and survey‐based research finds that people show disproportional compassionate and affective response to the scope of human mortality risk. According to research on “psychic numbing,” it is often the case that the more who die, the less we care. In the present article, we examine the extent of this phenomenon in verbal behavior, using large corpora of natural language to quantify the affective reactions to loss of life. We analyze valence, arousal, and specific emotional content of over 100,000 mentions of death in news articles and social media posts, and find that language shows an increase in valence (i.e., decreased negative affect) and a decrease in arousal when describing mortality of larger numbers of people. These patterns are most clearly reflected in specific emotions of joy and (in a reverse fashion) of fear and anger. Our results showcase a novel methodology for studying affective decision making, and highlight the robustness and real‐world relevance of psychic numbing. They also offer new insights regarding the psychological underpinnings of psychic numbing, as well as possible interventions for reducing psychic numbing and overcoming social and psychological barriers to action in the face of the world's most serious threats.

Suggested Citation

  • Sudeep Bhatia & Lukasz Walasek & Paul Slovic & Howard Kunreuther, 2021. "The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 179-203, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:41:y:2021:i:1:p:179-203
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13582
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13582?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas T. Hills & Eugenio Proto & Daniel Sgroi & Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe, 2019. "Author Correction: Historical analysis of national subjective wellbeing using millions of digitized books," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(12), pages 1343-1343, December.
    2. Sanjiv R. Das & Mike Y. Chen, 2007. "Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment Extraction from Small Talk on the Web," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(9), pages 1375-1388, September.
    3. Sudeep Bhatia, 2019. "Predicting Risk Perception: New Insights from Data Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3800-3823, August.
    4. Gallus, Jana & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2020. "Gender, power and emotions in the collaborative production of knowledge: A large-scale analysis of Wikipedia editor conversations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 115-130.
    5. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    6. Robert W. Smith & David Faro & Katherine A. Burson, 2013. "More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(5), pages 961-976.
    7. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic & Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Srinivas Emani, 1993. "Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 611-623, December.
    8. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2011. "Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 638-650, October.
    9. Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic & Marcus Mayorga & Ellen Peters, 2014. "Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-10, June.
    10. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    11. Fetherstonhaugh, David & Slovic, Paul & Johnson, Stephen & Friedrich, James, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June.
    12. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meital Balmas & Nitzan Attias & Eran Halperin, 2025. "The Warm War: The Effect of Ukrainian President’s Communal Personality Traits on Empathy and Pro-Social Behavior towards the Ukrainians," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 69(4), pages 627-646, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    2. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic, 2016. "Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims in a refugee crisis context," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    4. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    5. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    6. Marta Caserotti & Enrico Rubaltelli & Paul Slovic, 2019. "How decision context changes the balance between cost and benefit increasing charitable donations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 187-198, March.
    7. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    8. Pellegrin, Claire & Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel & Napoleone, Claude, 2018. "Does the Identifiable Victim Effect Matter for Plants? Results From a Quasi-experimental Survey of French Farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 106-113.
    9. Abhishek Bhati & Ruth K. Hansen, 2020. "A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    10. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    12. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    13. Jennifer Amsterlaw & Brian Zikmund-Fisher & Angela Fagerlin & Peter A. Ubel, 2006. "Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 64-75, July.
    14. Friedrich, James & Lucas, Gale & Hodell, Emily, 2005. "Proportional reasoning, framing effects, and affirmative action: Is six of one really half a dozen of another in university admissions?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 195-215, November.
    15. Mollerstrom, Johanna & Strulov-Shlain, Avner & Taubinsky, Dmitry, 2024. "The impact of group size on giving versus demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    16. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    17. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    18. Michele Graffeo & Nicolao Bonini, 2018. "The interaction between frames and numeracy in the evaluation of price reductions," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(1), pages 239-250, April.
    19. Hajdi Moche & Tom Gordon-Hecker & Tehila Kogut & Daniel Västfjäll, 2022. "Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 14-30, January.
    20. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:41:y:2021:i:1:p:179-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.