IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/i4rdps/199.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comment on "Negativity Drives Online News Consumption"

Author

Listed:
  • Reiss, Michael V.
  • Roggenkamp, Hauke

Abstract

We examine the reproducibility and robustness of the central claims from Robertson et al. (2023) who investigate the impact of negative language on online news consumption by analyzing over 12,448 randomized controlled trials on upworthy.com. Applying "lexical" sentiment analyses, the authors make two central claims: first, they find that headlines with negative words significantly increase click-through rates (CTR). Second, they find that positive words in a headline reduce a news headline's CTR. Our reproducibility efforts include two different techniques: using the same data and procedures described in the study, we successfully reproduce the two claims through a blind computational approach, with only minor and inconsequential discrepancies. When using the authors' codes, we reproduce the two claims with identical numerical results. Examining the robustness of the authors' claims in a pre-registered third step, we validate and apply a "semantic" sentiment analysis using two large language models to re-compute their independent variables describing negativity and positivity. While we find support for the negativity bias, we do not find semantic (in contrast to lexical) positivity to reduce online news consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Reiss, Michael V. & Roggenkamp, Hauke, 2025. "A Comment on "Negativity Drives Online News Consumption"," I4R Discussion Paper Series 199, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/311304/1/I4R-DP199.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas David Bowman, 2024. "On the Continued Need for Replication in Media and Communication Research," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.

      More about this item

      NEP fields

      This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

      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:zbw:i4rdps:199. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.i4replication.org/ .

      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.