Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation

By Brian E. Weeks. 2015

421 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e4fa93b6e9f0a6f5d8414340c9d90712364c4878

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom (2019, background): “…= .20).6 The vast majority of studies reported a single effect of fact-checking on beliefs; yet, in five cases, two or more different estimates were provided (e.g., Weeks, 2015; belief in claims Fact-Checking 357 358 Nathan Walter et al. about immigration/beliefs in claims about the death penalty).”
Political Fact-Checking on Twitter: When Do Corrections Have an Effect? (2018, background): “While some studies do show that corrections can have an effect (Weeks, 2015) the effects are often weak and require special contexts.”
Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news (2019, background): “In recent experimental work, angry partisans who saw uncorrected political misinformation from their own party held less accurate beliefs than emotionally neutral partisans, raising concern that anger can facilitate belief in falsehoods, which might be “especially troubling given that anger also dep”
The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source (2018, background): “In general, these studies have found that individuals are more likely to believe in dubious statements that match their partisanship than statements that run counter to their belief (e.g., Weeks, 2015).”
How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation (2018, background): “Surprisingly, there are very few studies that offer direct comparisons between different classes of messages (but see Nyhan & Reifler, 2010; Weeks, 2015).”
Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19 (2021, methodology): “Anxiety was measured, along with other emotions meant to conceal the study’s focus on anxiety, using three items (Weeks, 2015) on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely): “Below are some adjectives that describe about how people may feel.”
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics (2017, background): “…and more one-sided information treatments have typically not observed backﬁre effects (e.g., Hill, n.d.; Kim, n.d.; Nyhan & Reiﬂer, n.d.-a; Weeks, 2015; Wood & Porter, n.d.), suggesting that highly polarized responses and backﬁre effects may be more likely for highly salient…”
Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability (2019, result): “By contrast, other studies find that fact-checking and other types of factual information can partly overcome directionally motivated reasoning and reduce, or “debunk,” misperceptions (e.g., Weeks 2015; Nyhan and Reifler N.d.; Wood and Porter 2018; Chan et al. 2017).”
Anger, Fear, and Echo Chambers: The Emotional Basis for Online Behavior (2019, background): “Previous research has also associated anger with a lack of a will to compromise (MacKuen et al., 2010; Weeks, 2015).”
Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections (2018, background): “Weeks (2015) found that emotions can affect susceptibility to attitude-congruent political misinformation, but that corrections effected belief updating independent of partisanship.”
Partisan Provocation: The Role of Partisan News Use and Emotional Responses in Political Information Sharing in Social Media (2016, result): “…times demonstrated significant relationships with each other, the size of the correlation here is consistent with prior experimental research that suggests these emotions can have distinct effects on a variety of political outcomes despite their association (see MacKuen et al., 2010; Weeks, 2015).”