There are plenty of bad things going on in the world right now. Climate change, brutal dictatorships, endless wars, Nigel Farage, and so on. Faced with all that, it seems incredibly churlish to get worked up about sites using “Upworthy-style” headlines to get attention. But it is annoying! Massively so. I’m not the first person to say this; it’s an increasingly common complaint.

But why is it so annoying? What’s the harm in a youth-orientated website using idiosyncratic, emotionally-charged headlines to attract readers? One answer is: it’s because it's become an alarmingly widespread approach. This is understandable; Upworthy’s distinct style has generated a formidable amount of web traffic (maybe). In a world where the only ones who don’t care about search engine optimisation and web traffic are Icelandic vulcanologists, anything that helps attract traffic is going to be imitated. Something so widespread is bound to attract criticism.

But there seems to be more to it than that. The vitriol aimed at this style of headline writing goes beyond it just being too commonplace. What is it that makes it so annoying? Here are some possibilities.

Inconsistency

Many of these headlines follow the same format; an intriguing scenario is put forward, followed by promise of a strong emotional response to the conclusion. For example: “This buffalo just wanted to buy a pair of shoes. What happened next will blow your mind”; or: “This 90-year-old was told they shouldn’t dance the Macarena. You won’t believe the end result."

These headlines suggest massive inconsistency, particularly the “you won’t believe” examples. You’re incredibly certain I won’t believe something, aren't you, mister unspecified writer? But you clearly believe it, because you’ve written about it and put it up on the site. Why is my ability to comprehend and accept things automatically inferior to yours? Granted, there’s a lot of unbelievable stuff on the internet, but unless it’s a spoof, the people who put it there, or forward it, invariably do actually believe it. Ignoring 90% of those who link to the Daily Mail, people rarely look at something and think: “This is utter gibberish. Everyone must see it!”

Also, why tell people they “won’t believe” something, then immediately supply evidence that it definitely did happen? Don’t tell me I’ll “never eat cheese again”, then tackle me to the ground and force Edam down my throat; that's just baffling. Admittedly, evidence is often irrelevant to whether people believe something. Climate change is routinely scorned and homeopathy has many who swear by it, despite there being overwhelming evidence for the former, and essentially none for the latter.

Regardless, inconsistency is known to be psychologically distressing, and Upworthy-style headlines can cause this.

Presumption

The wording of these headlines is always “what happened next will blow your mind” or “how it ends up is heart-breaking” or “You will get angry when you see…” and on and on.

All include the inherent assumption that the reader will visit that article. More traditional attempts to attract interest use popular search terms or phrases, or even actively say something contentious or deliberately offensive to generate traffic via outrage. While undoubtedly manipulative, with these methods the decision to click still, nominally, remains with the potential reader.

Upworthy-style headlines are far more commanding. The possibility that the potential reader is an individual with the right to choose how to waste their time is not considered; you, hapless virtual peon, undoubtedly will click on this article, and when you do, this is definitely the emotional reaction you will have! Don’t go thinking you “know your own mind” better than we do; we create content for the internet! We are Gods compared to you!

Admittedly, I’m using overly-emotional exaggeration to achieve my aims. But then, in this context, that seems perfectly apt.

Manipulation

Online media sites constantly try to manipulate people. If you didn’t know this, that just shows how good they’ve gotten at it. As previously stated, considerable effort goes into search engine optimisation. If you’ve got a business that relies on web traffic for profit, of course you’re going to do what you can to ensure you get it; this just makes sense. Anyone and everyone does this, it’s just how the online world works.

Upworthy-style headlines may take it too far; the emotional language, predictable formatting and tantalising promises are perhaps too-obvious attempts at manipulating the reader. And if they know it’s happening, many people will actively resist being manipulated, as it can be quite infuriating. Consider how grating a sitcom with an obvious laugh track is. Effective manipulation is subtle; a good salesman can charm customers into parting with their cash, but we’ve all encountered the “other” types, all hair gel and buzzwords, who clap you on the back and bellow at you with false bonhomie, despite never having met you before. Rather than parting with cash, the overwhelming urge is to part them from their teeth at the possible expense of some knuckle skin.

This isn’t to say obvious manipulation never works; it can be very successful, and is arguably more honest. But bloody hell, it can be infuriating!

Status

All the points raised above could be reduced to one factor; Upworthy headlines adopt a high-status position compared to that of the reader. Humans care a lot about perceived social status, something that may be inherent to the species. When someone adopts a higher status to you without sufficient justification, this prompts resistance. You probably know someone who’s complained bitterly about having to take orders from someone at work who’s been promoted over them thanks to networking, nepotism or sucking up, rather than actual skill or experience. Such things invariably poison a working environment with bad feeling. People are surprisingly good at being obedient, but the orders have to come from a legitimate authority. For example, if you’re in an airport and a customs official tells you to take your belt off and prepare for a pat-down, there’s a good chance you’d do it; if you’re in Starbucks and a barista tells you the same thing, compliance is not so likely (unless this is the condition stated for getting a pumpkin spiced latte, as people seem oddly obsessed with those).

Being actively inconsistent, making presumptions about an individual, trying to manipulate them; these are all ways to lower someone’s status in an interaction and raise your own. Upworthy-style headlines do all of these constantly, so it should come as no surprise that some people find them infuriating. This may also explain why people reacted so negatively to CNN using Upworthy-style headlines. If CNN is perceived as a legitimate, authoritative "high status" news source, then it copying the youth-orientated content website Upworthy would suggest that said site is actually higher-status again, which would challenge the worldview of many. As stated, people don’t like that happening.

Although, studies suggest that it’s actually the lowest-status people who react most negatively to someone adopting a higher-status. Those who are comfortable in their social status can more easily ignore or brush off attempts to reduce it, but those who feel inferior get really worked up about it, presumably as they feel they have less to lose, so are more protective of it. So it’s possible that most people are fine with Upworthy-style headlines and their tactics; it’s just people who, on some level, consider themselves inferior who get worked up about them, like I do.

So that means I… wow.

I really didn’t expect that. I set out to find out why Upworthy-style headlines were annoying, but when I found out, my mind was blown!

Having a blown mind is no barrier to tweeting (it helps, if anything) so follow Dean Burnett on Twitter. @garwboy