CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactComplex Network Analysis Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet.

The Impact of Affect on the Perception of Fake News on Social Media: A Systematic Review

Open access
Ali Adeeb, Rana, Mirhoseini, Mahdi·2023·Social Sciences
DOI 10.3390/socsci12120674
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Social media platforms, which are ripe with emotionally charged pieces of information, are vulnerable to the dissemination of vast amounts of misinformation. Little is known about the affective processing that underlies peoples’ belief in and dissemination of fake news on social media, with the research on fake news predominantly focusing on cognitive processing aspects. This study presents a systematic review of the impact of affective constructs on the perception of fake news on social media platforms. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases to identify relevant articles on the topics of affect, misinformation, disinformation, and fake news. A total of 31 empirical articles were obtained and analyzed. Seven research themes and four research gaps emerged from this review. The findings of this review complement the existing literature on the cognitive mechanisms behind how people perceive fake news on social media. This can have implications for technology platforms, governments, and citizens interested in combating infodemics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/socsci12120674

Cites

112 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 113 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Ajzen, Icek (1996). Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Guilford Press.
  2. Bless, Herbert, and Fiedler, Klaus (2006). Affect in Social Thinking and Behaviour, Psychology Press.
  3. Corbu, 2021, Fake News Going Viral: The Mediating Effect of Negative Emotions, Media Literacy and Academic Research, 4, 58
  4. Marcus, George E., Neuman, W. Russell, and MacKuen, Michael (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press.
  5. Mehrabian, Albert, and Russell, James A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology, The MIT Press.
  6. Mortillaro, Marcello, and Mehu, Marc (2015). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier.
  7. Osatuyi, Babajide, and Hughes, Jerald (, January January). A Tale of Two Internet News Platforms-Real vs. Fake: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective. Paper presented at the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa Village, HI, USA.
  8. Pennycook, Gordon, and Rand, David G. (2023, November 01). Susceptibility to Partisan Fake News Is Explained More by a Lack of Deliberation than by Willful Ignorance. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165567.
  9. Rosenstiel, Tom, Sonderman, Jeff, Loker, Kevin, Ivancin, Maria, and Kjarval, Nina (2023, November 01). Twitter and the News: How People Use the Social Network to Learn About the World, AmericanPress Institute. Available online: http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Twitter-and-News-How-people-use-Twitter-to-get-news-American-Press-Institute.pdf.
  10. Scheibenzuber, 2023, Dialog in the Echo Chamber: Fake News Framing Predicts Emotion, Argumentation and Dialogic Social Knowledge Building in Subsequent Online Discussions, Computers in Human Behavior, 140, 107587, 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107587 · DOI
  11. Settle, Jaime E. (2020). The Oxford Handbook of Networked Communication, Oxford University Press.
  12. Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin (2019). Emotions, Media and Politics, John Wiley & Sons.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ali Adeeb, R., & Mirhoseini, M.
Affiliations
Department of Supply Chain and Business Technology Management, John Molson School of Business, 1450 Guy St, Montreal, QC H3H 0A1, Canada
ORCID
Venue
Social Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-12-06
Volume
12
Issue
12
Pages
674
ISSN
2076-0760 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/socsci12120674
OpenAlex
W4389387138
Cited by
45
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC) (2023-NP-312527)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
fake news, misinformation, disinformation, affect, emotions, social media, infodemic, emotional processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review