IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01861-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do emotions conquer facts? A CCME model for the impact of emotional information on implicit attitudes in the post-truth era

Author

Listed:
  • Ya Yang

    (Beijing Normal University
    Beijing Normal University
    Tsinghua University)

  • Lichao Xiu

    (Beijing Normal University
    Beijing Normal University)

  • Xuejiao Chen

    (Beijing Normal University
    Beijing Normal University)

  • Guoming Yu

    (Beijing Normal University
    Beijing Normal University)

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the influence of emotional media information on information-processing mechanisms in the current post-truth era. A cognitive conflict monitoring and evaluation (CCME) model was proposed to explore news audiences’ attention and implicit attitudes. The study had a 2 (information type, emotional vs. neutral) × 2 (condition, compatible vs. incompatible) × 3 (electrode position: Fz vs. Cz vs. Pz) design, and an implicit association test (IAT) was administered, with event-related potential (ERP) data collected. The results revealed that emotional information evoked different information-processing mechanisms than neutral information. First, in the early conflict-monitoring stage, emotional information altered arousal, and more attentional resources were allocated to semantic processing. Second, in the late evaluation stage, the lack of attentional resources (due to prior allocation) reduced the late-stage evaluation of the target stimuli by participants. Thus, in this post-truth era, attentional resources may be exhausted by processing emotional information in unnecessary media cues irrelevant to facts, inducing early cognitive conflict and prolonged late-stage evaluation of news articles.

Suggested Citation

  • Ya Yang & Lichao Xiu & Xuejiao Chen & Guoming Yu, 2023. "Do emotions conquer facts? A CCME model for the impact of emotional information on implicit attitudes in the post-truth era," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-7, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01861-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01861-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01861-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01861-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Virginia Gewin, 2017. "Communication: Post-truth predicaments," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7637), pages 425-427, January.
    2. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    3. Dietram A. Scheufele & Nicole M. Krause, 2019. "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(16), pages 7662-7669, April.
    4. Kathleen Higgins, 2016. "Post-truth: a guide for the perplexed," Nature, Nature, vol. 540(7631), pages 9-9, December.
    5. Shanto Iyengar & Douglas S. Massey, 2019. "Scientific communication in a post-truth society," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(16), pages 7656-7661, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam Brzezinski & Valentin Kecht & David Dijcke & Austin L. Wright, 2021. "Science skepticism reduced compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies in the United States," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1519-1527, November.
    2. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    3. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    4. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    5. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    6. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.
    7. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    8. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    9. Xuhao Shao & Ao Li & Chuansheng Chen & Elizabeth F. Loftus & Bi Zhu, 2023. "Cross-stage neural pattern similarity in the hippocampus predicts false memory derived from post-event inaccurate information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Huiru Cao & Xiaomin Li & Yanfeng Lin & Songyao Lian, 2022. "Hybrid Fake Information Containing Strategy Exploiting Multi-Dimensions Data in Online Community," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(18), pages 1-13, September.
    12. Abayomi Samuel Oyekale, 2021. "Willingness to Take COVID-19 Vaccines in Ethiopia: An Instrumental Variable Probit Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-11, August.
    13. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    14. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion," Working Papers 20-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. Rui Gaspar & Sílvia Luís & Beate Seibt & Maria Luísa Lima & Afrodita Marcu & Pieter Rutsaert & Dave Fletcher & Wim Verbeke & Julie Barnett, 2016. "Consumers’ avoidance of information on red meat risks: information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 533-549, April.
    16. Juana Farfán & María Elena Mazo, 2021. "Disinformation and Responsibility in Young People in Spain during the COVID-19 Era," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-8, August.
    17. Gravelle, Timothy B. & Lachapelle, Erick, 2015. "Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-108.
    18. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    19. Niels G. Mede, 2022. "Legacy media as inhibitors and drivers of public reservations against science: global survey evidence on the link between media use and anti-science attitudes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01861-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.