Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance

Prior studies indicate that emotions, particularly high-arousal emotions, may elicit rapid intuitive thinking, thereby decreasing the ability to recognize misinformation. Yet, few studies have distinguished prior affective states from emotional reactions to false news, which could influence belief in falsehoods in different ways. Extending a study by Martel et al. (Cognit Res: Principles Implic 5: 1-20, 2020), we conducted a pre-registered online survey experiment in Austria (N = 422), investigating associations of emotions and discernment of false and real news related to COVID-19. We found no associations of prior affective state with discernment, but observed higher anger and less joy in response to false compared to real news. Exploratory analyses, including automated analyses of open-ended text responses, suggested that anger arose for different reasons in different people depending on their prior beliefs. In our educated and left-leaning sample, higher anger was often related to recognizing the misinformation as such, rather than accepting the false claims. We conclude that studies need to distinguish between prior affective state and emotional response to misinformation and consider individuals' prior beliefs as determinants of emotions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cognitive Research Principles and Implications
Published
2024-12-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00607-0
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.06

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance

Jula Lühring, Corinna Koschmieder, Apeksha Shetty, H. Metzler et al.
8 citations
Cognitive Research Principles and Implications
Misinformation and Its Impacts
9.06
article

Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance

Jula Lühring, Corinna Koschmieder, Apeksha Shetty, H. Metzler, Annie Waldherr, David García
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Prior studies indicate that emotions, particularly high-arousal emotions, may elicit rapid intuitive thinking, thereby decreasing the ability to recognize misinformation. Yet, few studies have distinguished prior affective states from emotional reactions to false news, which could influence belief in falsehoods in different ways. Extending a study by Martel et al. (Cognit Res: Principles Implic 5: 1-20, 2020), we conducted a pre-registered online survey experiment in Austria (N = 422), investigating associations of emotions and discernment of false and real news related to COVID-19. We found no associations of prior affective state with discernment, but observed higher anger and less joy in response to false compared to real news. Exploratory analyses, including automated analyses of open-ended text responses, suggested that anger arose for different reasons in different people depending on their prior beliefs. In our educated and left-leaning sample, higher anger was often related to recognizing the misinformation as such, rather than accepting the false claims. We conclude that studies need to distinguish between prior affective state and emotional response to misinformation and consider individuals' prior beliefs as determinants of emotions.

Cognitive Research Principles and ImplicationsVol. 9(1)
University of Vienna (AT), University of Graz (AT), University of Konstanz (DE), Graz University of Technology (AT), University of Teacher Education Styria (AT), Complexity Science Hub (AT), Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Vienna Science and Technology Fund, Universität Wien
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
9.06
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.