Neuroscience research articles are provided.
What is neuroscience? Neuroscience is the scientific study of nervous systems. Neuroscience can involve research from many branches of science including those involving neurology, brain science, neurobiology, psychology, computer science, artificial intelligence, statistics, prosthetics, neuroimaging, engineering, medicine, physics, mathematics, pharmacology, electrophysiology, biology, robotics and technology.
– These articles focus mainly on neurology research. – What is neurology? – Definition of neurology: a science involved in the study of the nervous systems, especially of the diseases and disorders affecting them. – Neurology research can include information involving brain research, neurological disorders, medicine, brain cancer, peripheral nervous systems, central nervous systems, nerve damage, brain tumors, seizures, neurosurgery, electrophysiology, BMI, brain injuries, paralysis and spinal cord treatments.
What is Psychology? Definition of Psychology: Psychology is the study of behavior in an individual, or group. Psychology news articles are listed below.
Artificial Intelligence articles involve programming, neural engineering, artificial neural networks, artificial life, a-life, floyds, boids, emergence, machine learning, neuralbots, neuralrobotics, computational neuroscience and more involving A.I. research.
Robotics articles will cover robotics research press releases. Robotics news from universities, labs, researchers, engineers, students, high schools, conventions, competitions and more are posted and welcome.
Genetics articles related to neuroscience research will be listed here.
Neurotechnology research articles deal with robotics, AI, deep learning, machine learning, Brain Computer Interfaces, neuroprosthetics, neural implants and more. Read the latest neurotech news articles below.
Summary: Researchers reveal news stories about potential threats become more negative, hysterical and inaccurate when passed from person to person. The study reveals the effect is not counteracted by presenting people with more balanced and neutral facts.
Source: University of Warwick.
News stories about terrorism, disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and other potential threats become increasingly negative, inaccurate and hysterical when passed from person to person, according to new research by the University of Warwick.
Led by Professor Thomas Hills in Warwick’s Department of Psychology, the study finds that even drawing the public’s attention to unbiased, neutral facts does not mitigate this contagion of panic.
This is the first research ever to investigate the impact of dread on the social amplification of threat, and to examine the re-exposure of balanced information on the social diffusion of messages.
The results have important implications for contemporary society – with the constant proliferation of news stories (both legitimate and fake), rumours, retweets and messages across social media.
The researchers analysed 154 participants on social media. They were split into 14 chains of 8 people, with the first person in each chain reading balanced, factual news articles, and writing a message to the next person about the story, the recipient writing a new message for the next person, and so on.
The sixth person in each chain was given the message from the previous person, alongside the original neutral news story.
In every chain, stories about dreaded topics became increasingly more negative, and biased toward panic and fear as it was passed from person to person – and crucially, this effect was not mitigated when the original unbiased facts were reintroduced.
The original neutral information had virtually no effect on reducing people’s increasingly negative outlook.
Professor Thomas Hills from the University of Warwick’s Department of Psychology, commented:
“Society is an amplifier for risk. This research explains why our world looks increasingly threatening despite consistent reductions in real-world threats.
“It also shows that the more people share information, the further that information gets from the facts and the more resilient it becomes to correction.”
[divider]About this neuroscience research article[/divider]
Source: Luke Walton – University of Warwick Publisher: Organized by NeuroscienceNews.com. Image Source: NeuroscienceNews.com image is in the public domain. Original Research: Abstract for “Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication” by Robert D. Jagiello and Thomas T. Hills in Risk Analysis. Published May 29 2018. doi:10.1111/risa.13117
[divider]Cite This NeuroscienceNews.com Article[/divider]
[cbtabs][cbtab title=”MLA”]University of Warwick “Bad News Becomes Hysteria in Crowds.” NeuroscienceNews. NeuroscienceNews, 7 June 2018. <https://neurosciencenews.com/crowd-hysteria-news-9281/>.[/cbtab][cbtab title=”APA”]University of Warwick (2018, June 7). Bad News Becomes Hysteria in Crowds. NeuroscienceNews. Retrieved June 7, 2018 from https://neurosciencenews.com/crowd-hysteria-news-9281/[/cbtab][cbtab title=”Chicago”]University of Warwick “Bad News Becomes Hysteria in Crowds.” https://neurosciencenews.com/crowd-hysteria-news-9281/ (accessed June 7, 2018).[/cbtab][/cbtabs]
Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication
Social diffusion of information amplifies risk through processes of birth, death, and distortion of message content. Dread risk—involving uncontrollable, fatal, involuntary, and catastrophic outcomes (e.g., terrorist attacks and nuclear accidents)—may be particularly susceptible to amplification because of the psychological biases inherent in dread risk avoidance. To test this, initially balanced information about high or low dread topics was given to a set of individuals who then communicated this information through diffusion chains, each person passing a message to the next. A subset of these chains were also reexposed to the original information. We measured prior knowledge, perceived risk before and after transmission, and, at each link, number of positive and negative statements. Results showed that the more a message was transmitted the more negative statements it contained. This was highest for the high dread topic. Increased perceived risk and production of negative messages was closely related to the amount of negative information that was received, with domain knowledge mitigating this effect. Reexposue to the initial information was ineffectual in reducing bias, demonstrating the enhanced danger of socially transmitted information.
[divider]Feel free to share this Neuroscience News.[/divider]