Through a series of techniques/approaches, individuals are able to judge whether a statement is true or false. This includes the C&C Approach and steps to gauging plausibility. 

How do individuals judge truth?

Bad information is more salient than good information, negative instances attract more attention, negative information is processed more thoroughly, and there are more possible false statements. 

Why negatively phrased statements seem more likely to be true

Cooperative principle: Automatic initial belief that people are telling the truth when talking to you.

The maxim of quality: People should not share information they believe to be false and should not share something that lacks adequate evidence.

Why People are Predisposed to Expect the Truth

- Because of the cooperative principle and maxim of quality, people expect to be told the truth. When presented with misinformation, they are initially inclined to believe it is the truth. 

- Misinformation spreaders can incorporate negative statements to take advantage of negativity biases. This could be through either method of creating negativity (concept valence or negation). 

- Using the concept of psychological distance, those spreading misinformation could frame their arguments to feel more psychologically close to the readers, making the impact of negativity biases more pronounced. 

How Negativity Biases Contribute to the Spread of Misinformation

- Investigate how framing different contexts of information may impact an individual’s truth judgement.
- Investigate whether relevance of a statement to an individual may affect an individual’s judgement of truth
- Investigate offline versus online context judgements 


Future Directions of Negativity Bias and Truth Judgements

- psychological distance
- expectation violations
- sources of negativity

Potential Moderators of Negativity Bias

Humans are more likely to think that a negatively phrased statement is true than a positively phrased one when the content is the same. 

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Humans have a tendency to focus on the negative. For example, we focus more on potential threats than benefits.

Negativity bias

Jaffé, M. E., & Greifeneder, R. (2020). Can that be true or is it fake news? New perspec- tives on the negativity bias in judgments of truth. In R. Greifeneder, M. Jaffé, E. J. Newman, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and cor- recting misinformation (pp. 115–130). London: Routledge. 

Can that be true or is it fake news? New perspectives on the negativity bias in judgments of truth

People tend to share bad news with others more than good news.

Negativity bias and news

People have stronger emotional responses to negative feedback than to positive feedback.

Negativity bias and feedback

Animals have heightened perception when it comes to feeling effects such as pain, danger, or failure. The avoidance of these threats, increases the chances of suvival and thus that the animal passes on its genes. 

Bad is felt more than good

Risk aversion

If given the option, people tend to try to avoid losses more than achieve gains. This is a factor that contributes to how humans are not perfectly rational economic agents.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After