Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39692779›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024

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

Jula Lühring, Apeksha Shetty, Corinna Koschmieder, David Garcia, Annie Waldherr, Hannah Metzler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jula LühringDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. jula.luehring@univie.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0003-2008-5059
Apeksha ShettyDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. shetty.apeksha6@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2659-0515
Corinna KoschmiederInstitute of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-8541-7654
David GarciaComplexity Science Hub, Metternichgasse 8, 1030, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-2820-9151
Annie WaldherrDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7488-9138
Hannah MetzlerComplexity Science Hub, Metternichgasse 8, 1030, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9254-3675

Funding

Vienna Science and Technology Fund 10.47379/ICT20028Vienna Science and Technology Fund 10.47379/VRG16005
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

CommunicationCOVID-19EmotionsAdolescentAdultAffectAngerAustriaDeceptionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecognition, PsychologyYoung AdultAngerBeliefCOVID-19DiscernmentEmotionMisinformationRecognition

Identifiers

PMID39692779
PMCPMC11656008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.