Listen to the article
Emotional Language Reduces Belief in Misinformation, Study Finds
New research challenges the widespread assumption that emotional language increases susceptibility to misinformation online. A comprehensive series of studies reveals that people are actually more skeptical of claims presented with emotional language, regardless of whether the information is true or false.
The research, conducted across multiple experiments involving over 2,500 participants, found that people consistently viewed emotionally-charged content with greater suspicion than more neutral presentations of the same information.
“This work challenges the idea that the mere presence of emotional language increases susceptibility to misinformation,” said researchers involved in the study. “When holding the underlying claim constant, emotional language leads to increased skepticism—an effect that was larger for false claims than true claims.”
The team conducted three controlled experiments where participants were shown news headlines or claims with varying levels of emotional language. The researchers carefully manipulated the emotional tone while maintaining the same underlying factual assertions across different versions of each claim.
In all three experiments, participants rated emotionally-charged content as significantly less believable than neutrally-presented versions of the same information. This effect was stronger for false claims than for true ones, suggesting that emotional language actually improves people’s ability to detect misinformation.
These laboratory findings were reinforced by an analysis of real-world data from Twitter/X’s Community Notes program, where users collaborate to add context to potentially misleading posts. Notes containing emotional language were consistently rated as less helpful by other users, indicating that emotional content is viewed with greater skepticism in natural online environments as well.
However, the research also highlighted a critical disconnect between belief and engagement. While emotional language decreased believability, it simultaneously increased social media engagement—with emotionally-charged tweets receiving significantly more likes and retweets than neutral content.
“This sets up a dilemma for educators, journalists, and anyone looking to engage in mass communication,” the researchers noted. “Using emotional language may draw more attention to your content—thereby leading to more social media engagement—but it may also hurt one’s credibility and perceived trustworthiness.”
The findings have important implications for efforts to combat misinformation online. Many popular interventions currently aim to “inoculate” people against emotional manipulation techniques, based on the assumption that emotional language tricks people into believing false information. However, if people already naturally view emotional language with skepticism, such interventions may be unnecessary or even counterproductive.
Instead, the researchers suggest that interventions should focus more on inattention to accuracy rather than susceptibility to emotional manipulation. When scrolling through social media, people may not pause to consider whether information is accurate before engaging with it, even though they would be skeptical if directly asked about its truthfulness.
The study also raises concerns that increasing public awareness about emotional manipulation could potentially backfire by driving distrust in all emotionally-presented information—including true content, which likely constitutes the vast majority of what people encounter online.
The research focused primarily on negative emotional language, and the team acknowledges that different specific emotions might have distinct effects. Future work should explore how discrete emotions like moral outrage or happiness specifically influence belief and engagement, as well as how emotional language interacts with other features of online content.
These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how emotional content influences online behavior, challenging assumptions that have guided misinformation research and interventions. By showing that emotional language serves as a signal of potential untrustworthiness rather than a tool for deception, the research points toward more effective approaches for promoting information literacy in digital environments.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
I’m not surprised to see emotional language reducing belief in false claims. People are often more critical of sensationalized information, even if the underlying facts are accurate. This study provides a helpful counterpoint to common assumptions.
An interesting counterpoint to the ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ mentality. This suggests emotional appeals may not always boost misinformation, as is often assumed. Context is key when evaluating the persuasive power of language.
This is an interesting finding. I wonder if the effect holds for more complex or controversial claims, not just simple headlines. Skepticism is good, but we shouldn’t dismiss all emotive language as inherently suspicious.
Good point. The study design focused on relatively straightforward claims. More nuanced misinformation may require a different approach to evaluate the role of emotional language.
Fascinating study. I’m curious to see how this holds up across different types of misinformation and emotional appeals. Could emotional language be more effective for some false claims than others?
Curious to see how this applies to misinformation in the mining and energy sectors, where emotionally-charged claims are common. Do the findings hold up in those more technical, specialized domains?
This is a thought-provoking study. I wonder if the emotional language effect varies for different types of false claims – e.g. political vs. scientific. Clearly more research is needed to fully understand these dynamics.
This is an important finding that challenges conventional wisdom. It suggests we need to be cautious about dismissing all emotive language as inherently misleading. Context and content matter when evaluating the impact of emotional appeals.
Agreed. Blind skepticism towards emotional language may be just as problematic as uncritical acceptance. A more nuanced, case-by-case approach is warranted.