Emotion and Humor As Misinformation Antidotes

Overview

Journal Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

Specialty Science

Date 2021 Apr 10

PMID 33837148

Citations 11

Authors

Sara K Yeo

Meaghan McKasy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Many visible public debates over scientific issues are clouded in accusations of falsehood, which place increasing demands on citizens to distinguish fact from fiction. Yet, constraints on our ability to detect misinformation coupled with our inadvertent motivations to believe false science result in a high likelihood that we will form misperceptions. As science falsehoods are often presented with emotional appeals, we focus our perspective on the roles of emotion and humor in the formation of science attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. Recent research sheds light on how funny science and emotions can help explain and potentially overcome our inability or lack of motivation to recognize and challenge misinformation. We identify some lessons learned from these related and growing areas of research and conclude with a brief discussion of the ethical considerations of using persuasive strategies, calling for more dialogue among members of the science communication community.

Citing Articles

Being vulnerable with viewers: Exploring how medical YouTubers communicated about COVID-19 with the public.

Chae S, Hara N, Shiroiya H, Chen J, Ogihara E PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0313857.

PMID: 39705277 PMC: 11661595. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313857.

Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance.

Luhring J, Shetty A, Koschmieder C, Garcia D, Waldherr A, Metzler H Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):82.

PMID: 39692779 PMC: 11656008. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00607-0.

Examination of public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes in the United States reveals insights for science communication.

Kokkinias K, Pruneski K, Wrighton K, Kelp N PLoS One. 2024; 19(10):e0312427.

PMID: 39432547 PMC: 11493282. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.

Older women's perspectives on the ethics of persuasion in doctor-patient communication.

Schoenborn N, Hannum S, Gollust S, Nagler R, Schonberg M, Pollack C J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024; 72(10):3179-3187.

PMID: 39143039 PMC: 11461138. DOI: 10.1111/jgs.19121.

Navigating persuasive strategies in online health misinformation: An interview study with older adults on misinformation management.

Peng W, Meng J, Issaka B PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0307771.

PMID: 39052635 PMC: 11271879. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307771.

References

Scheufele D . Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 Suppl 3:14040-7. PMC: 3752169. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110. View

Dahlstrom M . Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111 Suppl 4:13614-20. PMC: 4183170. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320645111. View

Keltner D, Ellsworth P, Edwards K . Beyond simple pessimism: effects of sadness and anger on social perception. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993; 64(5):740-52. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.64.5.740. View

Moyer-Guse E, Robinson M, McKnight J . The Role of Humor in Messaging about the MMR Vaccine. J Health Commun. 2018; 23(6):514-522. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1473533. View

Yeo S, Cacciatore M, Su L, McKasy M, ONeill L . Following science on social media: The effects of humor and source likability. Public Underst Sci. 2021; 30(5):552-569. DOI: 10.1177/0963662520986942. View

Bubela T, Nisbet M, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E . Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol. 2009; 27(6):514-8. DOI: 10.1038/nbt0609-514. View

Scheufele D, Krause N . Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(16):7662-7669. PMC: 6475373. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805871115. View

McComas K, Trumbo C . Source credibility in environmental health-risk controversies: application of Meyer's credibility index. Risk Anal. 2001; 21(3):467-80. DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.213126. View

Sangalang A, Ophir Y, Cappella J . The Potential for Narrative Correctives to Combat Misinformation. J Commun. 2019; 69(3):298-319. PMC: 6544903. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqz014. View

10.

Raghunathan , Pham . All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999; 79(1):56-77. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2838. View

11.

Bean S . Emerging and continuing trends in vaccine opposition website content. Vaccine. 2011; 29(10):1874-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.01.003. View

12.

Nabi R . Emotional flow in persuasive health messages. Health Commun. 2014; 30(2):114-24. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2014.974129. View

13.

Lewandowsky S, Ecker U, Seifert C, Schwarz N, Cook J . Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2015; 13(3):106-31. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018. View

14.

Yeo S, Sun Y, McKasy M, Shugart E . Disgusting microbes: The effect of disgust on perceptions of risks related to modifying microbiomes. Public Underst Sci. 2019; 28(4):433-448. DOI: 10.1177/0963662519832200. View

15.

Rothman A, Salovey P . Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997; 121(1):3-19. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3. View

16.

Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu J, Rand D . Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention. Psychol Sci. 2020; 31(7):770-780. PMC: 7366427. DOI: 10.1177/0956797620939054. View

17.

Malka A, Krosnick J, Langer G . The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Anal. 2009; 29(5):633-47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x. View

18.

Brumfiel G . Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?. Nature. 2009; 458(7236):274-7. DOI: 10.1038/458274a. View

19.

Brossard D . New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 Suppl 3:14096-101. PMC: 3752175. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212744110. View

20.

Siegrist M, Connor M, Keller C . Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments. Risk Anal. 2011; 32(8):1394-403. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01739.x. View