Listen to the article
In a world where misinformation spreads faster than fact, a new study offers insight into why many people fall for fake news, even when they suspect it’s false. The research reveals that emotional cues, rather than accuracy, predominantly shape how we consume and share news on social media.
The groundbreaking study, published in Information Systems Frontiers, was conducted by researchers from Georgia State University’s Robinson College of Business, Kennesaw State University, and the University of Tennessee. The team developed a model that challenges previous assumptions about why people believe and spread false information.
While earlier research largely attributed belief in fake news to confirmation bias—the tendency to accept information that supports existing worldviews—this new study suggests a more complex psychological mechanism is at work, particularly during periods of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We found that people do consume fake news differently than tabloid news, which is largely consumed for entertainment and not taken seriously,” explains Amrita George, co-author and clinical assistant professor of computer information systems at Robinson. “With fake news, people are believing and sharing it because it feels useful either emotionally or informationally.”
The researchers’ Content Dimensions–Overton Window–Perceived Utility (COP) Model examines three critical factors in any news piece: veracity (factual accuracy), emotional appeal (psychological impact), and relevance (personal connection). These elements collectively determine whether readers consider a story worth consuming or sharing.
A key component of the model is the Overton window—a political science concept describing the range of ideas the public considers acceptable at any given time. The study found that if fake news falls within this window, or pushes its boundaries just enough, it’s more likely to gain traction.
To validate their theory, the team analyzed over 10,000 COVID-19 related tweets, examining which posts received positive engagement (“likes”) versus which were “ratioed”—receiving more negative comments than likes, indicating public disapproval. The researchers also conducted emotion and sentiment analyses to measure tone, trust, and relevance.
“We found the Overton window plays a significant role in the response to fake news. It determined whether the fake news would be acceptable or unacceptable to people,” George notes.
The analysis revealed that users are highly responsive to emotional tone, particularly negative emotions such as fear, anger, and disgust. Even when content contained verifiable falsehoods, if it resonated emotionally and felt personally relevant, it was more likely to be liked and shared. Notably, users demonstrated greater tolerance for inaccuracies when the story delivered emotional satisfaction—a tendency significantly more pronounced with fake news than traditional tabloid journalism.
“A really interesting finding was that rather than providing information, fake news provided more emotional support in uncertain times, given we were analyzing fake news data from the COVID-19 pandemic,” George adds.
The study’s timing is particularly significant as AI-generated content increasingly saturates social media feeds. The researchers suggest that the ratio of likes to replies could help platforms identify potentially misleading or inflammatory content, and that emotional tone should be incorporated into detection algorithms alongside fact-checking.
The findings underscore the importance of comprehensive media literacy education. Countries like Finland have already integrated such programs into school curricula beginning in kindergarten. Similar initiatives could help immunize the public against emotionally manipulative misinformation by teaching people not only to identify falsehoods but also to recognize when their emotions are being exploited.
Perhaps most concerning, the research demonstrates how fake news can gradually shift the boundaries of public discourse. When emotionally charged stories gain widespread acceptance, they slowly expand the Overton Window, normalizing ideas that might previously have seemed extreme or unthinkable.
“We’re not just talking about what people believe,” George emphasizes. “We’re talking about what becomes acceptable to believe. And that’s a much bigger deal.”
As misinformation continues to challenge democratic institutions and public health initiatives worldwide, this research provides valuable insights for policymakers, technology companies, and educators working to combat the spread of fake news in an increasingly digital information ecosystem.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The study’s finding that emotional cues, rather than accuracy, shape how people consume and share news is concerning. It highlights the need for improved media literacy and critical thinking skills, especially when it comes to financial and investment-related news.
Agreed. Developing robust strategies to build public resilience against misinformation, particularly in high-stakes domains like mining and finance, should be a priority for policymakers and educators.
Interesting study on the psychology behind the spread of misinformation. Emotional cues and uncertainty seem to play a big role, rather than just confirmation bias. It’s a complex issue that deserves further research.
Absolutely, understanding the nuanced drivers of misinformation is crucial. Fact-checking alone may not be enough if the underlying psychological factors aren’t addressed.
With the rise of social media, the spread of misinformation has become a major challenge. This study provides valuable insights into the mindset of those who consume and share fake news. Addressing the emotional and psychological aspects will be key.
Agreed. Tackling misinformation requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond just improving fact-checking. Educating the public and building resilience against emotional manipulation will be crucial.
The findings about fake news being consumed differently than tabloid news are intriguing. It suggests that the motivations behind sharing misinformation may be more complex than we assume. A nuanced understanding is needed to develop effective solutions.
That’s a good point. Treating all misinformation the same way may not be the best approach. Tailoring strategies to different types of fake news could be more effective.
As an investor, I’m curious to see how this research on misinformation could apply to the mining and commodities sector. Separating fact from fiction in this space is crucial, especially during times of market uncertainty.
That’s a great observation. Investors need to be particularly vigilant about misinformation in the mining and commodities space, where emotions and speculation can sometimes cloud rational decision-making.