Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reactions to the Message and Messenger

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Multidisciplinary Framework of Information Propagation Online

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Complexity ((BRIEFSCOMPLEXITY))

  • 325 Accesses

Abstract

Genuine actors will react to the message they read and the messenger they encounter. We categorized these reactions into those related to affect and engagement (e.g., high arousal-specific emotions such as surprise or disgust) and those related to cognitive factors that influence belief, including factors that prompt individuals to engage in heuristic thinking. These affective and cognitive factors often interact in complex ways. We also categorized entertainment, humor, and intellectual engagement as inherently both related to affect and cognition. Believing in the content of the message is not necessary for individuals to share it online.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is a marketplace where individuals sign up for brief tasks for small pay, including data de-duplication, identifying objects in a photograph, and taking part in experiments.

  2. 2.

    One topic not covered here is individuals’ reactions to pornographic content, which may also spur reactions that may or may not motivate sharing behavior.

References

  • Abad-Santos, A. (2017, December 18). Star Wars’ porgs and the power of “charismatic minifauna,” explained. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16776834/star-wars-porgs-charismatic-minifauna-cute

  • Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31, 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alley, T. R. (1981). Head shape and the perception of cuteness. Developmental Psychology, 17, 650–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnone, M., Small, R., Chauncey, S., & McKenna, H. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Milkman, K. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J. (2015). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordia, P., & DiFonzo, N. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botha, E., & Reyneke, M. (2013). To share or not to share: The role of content and emotion in viral marketing. Journal of Public Affairs, 13, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutz, J., Brugman, C., & Lancaster, A. (2017). Quoting the Prophet online: Communicative functions of hadith quotations in web-based Arabic discourse. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 10, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1386/jammr.10.1.3_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. PNAS, 114, 7313–7318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, C. J., & Inbar, Y. (2015). Disgust sensitivity predicts political ideology and policy attitudes in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock, T. C., & Green, M. C. (Eds.). (2005). Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniatowski, D. A., Hilyard, K. M., & Dredze, M. (2016). Effective vaccine communication during the Disneyland measles outbreak. Vaccine, 34, 3225–3228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. S., Brown, L. A., & Zoccoli, S. L. (2002). Repetition-based credibility enhancement of unfamiliar faces. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, R. (2016). Aww: The emotion of perceiving cuteness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1740–1740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it…and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognition motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M.-P. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28, 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., & Sin, S. (2013). ‘Misinformation? What of it?’ Motivations and individual differences in misinformation sharing on social media. In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Vol. 50, pp 1–4). Montreal, Quebec, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14505001102

    Google Scholar 

  • Chessen, M. (2017). The MADCOM future: How artificial intelligence will enhance computational propaganda, reprogram human culture, and threaten democracy….and what can be done about it. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, N. S., & DeChurch, L. A. (2014). Integrating social networks and human social motives to achieve social influence at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 13650–13657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2012). The debunking handbook. St. Lucia: University of Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk].

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Mental set and creative thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 648–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Keersmaecker, J., & Roets, A. (2017). ‘Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct: The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions. Intelligence, 65, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1989). Theories of mass communication (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., et al. (2018). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science., 14(2), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dredze, M., Broniatowski, D. A., & Hilyard, K. M. (2016). Zika vaccine misconceptions: A social media analysis. Vaccine, 34, 3441–3442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dredze, M., Broniatowski, D. A., Smith, M. C., & Hilyard, K. M. (2016). Understanding vaccine refusal: Why we need social media now. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50, 550–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducarme, F., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2013). What are “charismatic species” for conservation biologists? BioSciences Master Reviews, 1, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. E., Miller, C. H., Adame, B. J., Elizondo, J., Wilson, S. N., Lane, B. L., et al. (2014). Implicit and explicit training in the mitigation of cognitive bias through the use of a serious game. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Chang, E. P., & Pillai, R. (2014). The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Fenton, O., & Martin, K. (2014). Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42, 292–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1087–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 319–343). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1992a). Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review, 99, 550–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1992b). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Cordaro, D. (2011). What is meant by calling emotions basic. Emotion Review, 3, 364–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farwell, J. P. (2014). The media strategy of ISIS. Survival, 45, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2014.985436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misconceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Advances in Political Psychology, 38, 127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friesen, J. P., Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2015). The psychological advantage of unfalsifiability: The appeal of untestable religious and political ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 515–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Marques, T., Silva, R. R., & Mello, J. (2016). Judging the truth-value of a statement in and out of a deep processing context. Social Cognition, 34, 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N. (2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115, 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2001). The functional anatomy of humor: Segregating cognitive and affective components. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 237–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golle, J., Lisibach, S., Mast, F. W., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2013). Sweet puppies and cute babies: Perceptual adaptation to babyfacedness transfers across species. PLoS One, 8, e58248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goolsby, R. (2013). On cybersecurity, crowdsourcing, and social cyber-attack (Policy Memo Series, Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Wilson Center Science and Technology Innovation Program Commons Lab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (1991). Chaos and regulated change in families: A metaphor for the study of transitions. In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 247–272). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, J. D. (2003). Evaluating the credibility of online information: A test of source and advertising influence. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0601_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groshek, J., & Al-Rawi, A. (2013). Public sentiment and critical framing in social media content during the 2012 U.S. political campaign. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 563–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, S., & Ahn, J. (2011). Why are you sharing others’ tweets?: The impact of argument quality and source credibility on information sharing behavior. Paper presented at the 32nd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). ISBN: 978-0-615-55907-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasell, A., & Weeks, B. (2016). Partisan provocation: The role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research, 42, 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, I., & Preston, J. L. (2013). Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 178–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne, Z., Powell, D., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Countering antivaccination attitudes. PNAS, 112, 10321–10324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Krochik, M. (2014). Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: Implications for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. Advances in Motivation Science, 1, 181–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 1: What politically motivated reasoning is and how to measure it. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–16). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Lee, C., & Elias, T. (2015). Factors affecting information sharing in social networking sites amongst university students. Online Information Review, 39(3), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2015-0022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Schneer, B., & White, A. (2017). How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science, 358, 776–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4, 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, S. (2016, December 17). How does your favorite news source rate on the ‘truthiness’ scale? Consult this chart. Marketwatch. Retrieved from https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-does-your-favorite-news-source-rate-on-the-truthiness-scale-consult-this-chart-2016-12-15

  • Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1093–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 390–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 619–642). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. J., & Paletz, S. B. F. (2009). Citizens’ perceptions of ideological bias in research on public policy controversies. Political Psychology, 30, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, K., & Gibson, R. (2016). Positive news makes readers feel good: A “Silver-Lining” approach to negative news can attract audiences. Southern Communication Journal, 81, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2016.1171892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, T., & Gilbert, E. (2014). The language that gets people to give: Phrases that predict success on Kickstarter. In CSCW’14, Baltimore, MD. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531656

  • Mønsted, B., Sapieżyński, P., Ferrara, E., & Lehmann, S. (2017). Evidence of complex contagion of information in social media: An experiment using Twitter bots. PLoS One, 12, e0184148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, J. L., Huang, J., Vonasch, A. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2017). Superheroes for change: Physical safety promotes socially (but not economically) progressive attitudes among conservatives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E. J., Garry, M., Bernstein, D. M., Kantner, J., & Lindsay, D. S. (2012). Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 19, 969–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E. J., Sanson, M., Miller, E. K., Quigley-McBride, A., Foster, J. L., Bernstein, D. M., et al. (2014). People with easier to pronounce names promote truthiness of claims. PLoS One, 9, e88671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nittono, H., Fukushima, M., Yano, A., Moriya, H., & Paterson, K. (2012). The power of kawaii: Viewing cute images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus. Plos One, 7, 46362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paletz, D. L., Koon, J., Whitehead, E., & Hagens, R. B. (1972). Selective exposure: The potential boomerang effect. Journal of Communication, 22, 48–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2017). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, C., & Matthews, M. (2016). The Russian “firehose of falsehood” propaganda model: Why it might work and options to counter it. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than motivated reasoning. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011

  • Peter, C., & Koch, T. (2016). When debunking scientific myths fails (and when it does not): The backfire effect in the context of journalistic coverage and immediate judgments as prevention strategy. Science Communication, 38, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, K., Kashima, Y., & Clark, A. (2009). Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 442–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 81–116). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, C., Nettelbeck, T., & Burns, N. (2016). Deconstructing intellectual curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, A. L., & Phelps, R. J. (2017). The citation effect: In-text citations moderately increase belief in trivia claims. Acta Psychologica, 179, 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocklage, M. D., Rucker, D. D., & Nordgren, L. F. (2018). Persuasion, emotion, and language: The intent to persuade transforms language via emotionality. Psychological Science, 29(5), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761774479. 1-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. A. (2014). Four perspectives on the psychology of emotion: An introduction. Emotion Review, 6, 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2015). The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 1–16). Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.47

  • Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Newman, E., & Leach, W. (2016). Making the truth stick & the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology. Behavioral Science & Policy, 2, 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharot, T., Delgado, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2004). How emotion enhances the feeling of remembering. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1376–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharot, T., & Garrett, N. (2016). Forming beliefs: Why valence matters. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, G. D., & Haidt, J. (2011). Cuteness and disgust: The humanizing and dehumanizing effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 3(3), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shifman, L. (2011). Anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society, 14(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, R. R., Garcia-Marques, T., & Reber, R. (2017). The informative value of type of repetition: Perceptual and conceptual fluency influences on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 51, 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, C. (2015). Lies, damn lies, and viral content: How news websites spread (and debunk) online rumors, unverified claims, and misinformation. New York: Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia Journalism School. Retrieved from https://towcenter.org/research/lies-damn-lies-and-viral-content/

    Google Scholar 

  • Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005). How warnings about false claims become recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 713–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snopes. (2017). Did Hillary Clinton tell FBI’s Mueller to deliver uranium to Russians in 2009 ‘secret tarmac meeting’? Snopes. Retrieved from https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/

  • Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26, 791–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southwell, B. G., & Thorson, E. A. (2015). The prevalence, consequence, and remedy of misinformation in mass media systems. Journal of Communication, 65, 589–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 259–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbird, K., Arif, A., Wilson, T., Van Koevering, K., Yefimova, K., & Scarnecchia, D. (2018). Ecosystem or echo-system? Exploring content sharing across alternative media domains. In 12th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM-18) (pp. 365–374). Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinnes, K. (2017). Cuteness evokes the kama muta emotion and motivates communal sharing. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media - Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29, 217–247. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160802. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swire, B., Ecker, U. K. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1948–1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syn, S., & Oh, S. (2015). Why do social network site users share information on Facebook and Twitter? Journal of Information Science, 41, 553–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515585717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorson, K., Vraga, E., & Ekdale, B. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 520–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, A. N., & Skitka, L. J. (2017). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, B., & Holbert, R. (2013). Predicting dissemination of news content in social media: A focus on reception, friending, and partisanship. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 212–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbuch, M., & Mackie, D. (2009). False fame, perceptual clarity, or persuasion? Flexible fluency attribution in spokesperson familiarity effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 62–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Education Psychology, 100, 930–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2014). Social media as information source: Recency of updates and credibility of information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, T. (2016, May 25). Islamic State using kittens to lure jihadists to fight. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/isil-using-kittens-to-lure-jihadists-to-fight/

  • Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., & Wang, Y. (2015). Social sharing of online videos: Examining American consumers- video sharing attitudes, intent, and behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 32, 907–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (2011). Arousal increases social transmission of information. Psychological Science, 22, 891-893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. W., & Gruszczynski, M. (2016). When framing matters: How partisan and journalistic frames affect individual opinions and party identification. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 18, 5-48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Susannah B. F. Paletz & Ewa M. Golonka

  2. Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Brooke E. Auxier

Authors
  1. Susannah B. F. Paletz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brooke E. Auxier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ewa M. Golonka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Paletz, S.B.F., Auxier, B.E., Golonka, E.M. (2019). Reactions to the Message and Messenger. In: A Multidisciplinary Framework of Information Propagation Online. SpringerBriefs in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16413-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16413-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16412-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16413-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation