We use news to regulate our moods

When men and women are angry, they both choose the news media articles they read with the goal of regulating their moods, a new study suggests.

But, in some circumstances, men choose to read articles that will fuel their anger, while women choose articles that will dissipate it.

Researchers found that when men were angered and anticipate the chance to retaliate, they chose to read negative online news stories, presumably to sustain their anger until their opportunity to get even.

Women faced with the same situation, however, chose to read more positive news to help dissipate their anger before a possible confrontation.

"For women, it is not seen as appropriate for them to retaliate when they're angry, but it is OK for men. And that's reflected in their selection of media content," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.

"This shows that even our news consumption is not motivated just by information concerns. We use news to regulate our moods."

Knobloch-Westerwick conducted the study with Scott Alter of the University of Michigan. Their results were published in a recent issue of the journal Human Communication Research.

The study involved 86 college students. Participants thought they were participating in two unrelated experiments.

In the first experiment, the students sat in front of a computer screen and given an impossible task: to evaluate photos of people with neutral expressions on their faces. They were asked to select which one of six emotions - anger, fear, sadness, disgust, happiness, and surprise - each face represented. They were shown 20 faces, each for just two seconds.

"There was really no way to tell which emotions the people in the photos were feeling," Knobloch-Westerwick said.

Their answers were really irrelevant anyway, she said. The person supervising the experiment gave each participant one of two standard responses after the experiment: one designed to provoke low levels of anger, and one to provoke high levels.

Depending on the anger level selected, the supervisor told the participants they got 45 or 85 percent of the answers wrong, and that this reflects either their "fairly weak" or "unusable" social skills.

In one more twist, half the people were told before they began the experiment that they would have the opportunity to evaluate the supervisor of the experiment, and recommend whether this person should keep his job. This was the opportunity some participants had for retaliation against the person who angered them.

Next, participants were told they would begin the second study, in which they evaluated an experimental online magazine. They saw a contents screen that showed 12 stories, all from real magazines. Half were pre-selected as positive stories, and half were negative. The students were told they would not have time to read them all, and to choose the ones that most interested them.