Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 211–236.
Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D., & Watts, D. J. (2020). Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances, 6, eaay539.
Bagò, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, P. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729.
Bakir, V., & McStay, A. (2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism, 6, 154–175.
Ballarini, C., & Sloman, S. A. (2017). Reasons and the “Motivated numeracy effect”. In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1580–1585).
Barr, D. J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 328.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45–62.
Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.
Bohn-Gettler, C. M. (2019). Getting a grip: the PET framework for studying how reader emotions influence comprehension. Discourse Processes, 56, 386–401.
Bahçekapılı, H. G., & Yılmaz, O. (2017). The relation between different types of religiosity and analytic cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 267–272.
Brauer, M., & Curtin, J. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23, 389–411.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Stavraki, M., Lamprinakos, G., Wagner, B., & Díaz, D. (2018). Affective and cognitive validation of thoughts: An appraisal perspective on anger, disgust, surprise, and awe. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 693–718.
Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8, 108–117.
Coppock, A. (2019). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7, 613–628.
Coppock, A., & McClellan, O. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research and Politics, 6, 2053168018822174.
Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 871–883.
Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 9587–9592.
Effron, D. A., & Raj, M. (2020). Misinformation and morality: encountering fake-news headlines makes them seem less unethical to publish and share. Psychological Science, 31, 75–87.
Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454–459.
Fazio, L. (2020). Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news. Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009.
Fiedler, K., & Beier, S. (2014). Affect and cognitive processing in educational contexts. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 36–55). London: Taylor & Francis.
Forgas, J. P. (2019). Happy believers and sad skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 306–313.
Forgas, J. P., & East, R. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1362–1367.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.
Garrett, R. K., & Weeks, B. E. (2017). Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PLoS ONE, 12, e0184733.
Gelman, A., & Su, Y. (2018). Arm: Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models: R package version 1.10-1. Retrieved from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/arm/index.html.
Guess, A. M., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5, eaau586.
Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 472–480.
Horne, B. D., & Adali, S. (2017, May). This just in: Fake news packs a lot in title, uses simpler, repetitive content in text body, more similar to satire than real news. Paper presented at the 11th international AAAI conference on web and social media. Montreal, QC.
Huntsinger, J. R., & Ray, C. (2016). A flexible influence of affective feelings on creative and analytic performance. Emotion, 16, 826–837.
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
Kahan, D. M. (2017). Misconceptions, misinformation, and the logic of identity-protective cognition. SSRN Electronic Journal, 85, 808–822.
Kahan, D. M., & Peters, E. (2017). Rumors of the ‘Nonreplication’ of the ‘Motivated Numeracy Effect’ are greatly exaggerated. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3026941.
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54–86.
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., & Polavin, N. (2017). Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication Research, 47, 104–124.
Koch, A. S., & Forgas, J. P. (2012). Feeling good and feeling truth: The interactive effects of mood and processing fluency on truth judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 481–485.
Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 59–80.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed-effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26.
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., et al. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359, 1094–1096.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.
Levine, E. E., Barasch, A., Rand, D., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2018). Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 702–719.
Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect”. Communications Monographs, 66, 125–144.
MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 440–458.
Majima, Y., Walker, A. C., Turpin, M. H., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2020). Culture and epistemically suspect beliefs. PsyArXiv. Preprint. https://psyarxiv.com/qmtn6/.
Mashuri, A., Zaduqisti, E., Sukmawati, F., Sakdiah, H., & Suharini, N. (2016). The role of identity subversion in structuring the effects of intergroup threats and negative emotions on belief in anti-west conspiracy theories in Indonesia. Psychology and Developing Societies, 28, 1–28.
Meinhardt, J., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 477–500.
Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Twitter data reveal digital fingerprints of cognitive reflection. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qaswn.
Mullinix, K., Leeper, T., Druckman, J., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109–138.
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1865–1880.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015a). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549–563.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335–346.
Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online. https://psyarxiv.com/3n9u8.
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015b). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72.
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31, 770–780.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019a). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019b). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 2521–2526.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019c). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476.
Posner, J., Russell, J. A., & Peterson, B. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 715–734.
Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Kohlhepp, K., & Ryskin, R. A. (2014). Reducing reliance on inaccurate information. Memory and Cognition, 42, 11–26.
Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: three conceptual frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 165–196.
Schwarz, N. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 289–308.
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 423–428.
Silverman, C., & Singer-Vine, J. (2016). Most Americans who see fake news believe it, new survey says. BuzzFeed News. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TRR0DK.
Stanovich, K. E. (2005). The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225–247.
Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Furnham, A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, 133, 572–585.
Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 99–113.
Unkelbach, C., Bayer, M., Alves, H., Koch, A., & Stahl, C. (2011). Fluency and positivity as possible causes of the truth effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 594–602.
Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology, 29, 247–273.
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146–1151.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65, 699–719.