New research reveals why people believe fake news

Understanding the Psychology Behind Fake News

In an era where misinformation spreads faster than factual information, a groundbreaking study is shedding light on why individuals often fall for fake news, even when they suspect it's not true. Researchers from Georgia State's Robinson College of Business, Kennesaw State University, and the University of Tennessee have developed a model that explores how emotional cues, rather than accuracy, influence the way people consume and share news on social media.

The study, titled "Tabloids, Fake News, and the Overton Window: The COP Model on News Consumption in Uncertain Times," was co-authored by Aaron French, Amrita George, Joshua Madden, and Veda C. Storey. It was published in Information Systems Frontiers.

At the core of this research lies a fundamental question: Why do people believe and spread fake news, and do they consume it in the same way as tabloid news?

Previous studies have largely attributed belief in fake news to confirmation bias, the tendency to accept information that aligns with one's existing beliefs. However, this new study reveals a deeper layer at play, especially during times of uncertainty such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We found that people do consume fake news differently than tabloid news, which is largely consumed for entertainment and not taken seriously. With fake news, people are believing and sharing it because it feels useful either emotionally or informationally," said Amrita George, co-author and clinical assistant professor of computer information systems (CIS) at Robinson.

The Emotional Component of Fake News

In essence, fake news satisfies an emotional need. During anxious and unstable times, this emotional need can be more powerful than the pursuit of truth.

For their study, the researchers defined fake news as articles that appear to be legitimate but originate from non-institutional sources and contain verifiably false information intended to deceive. To explore how people consume fake news, the researchers created the Content Dimensions–Overton Window–Perceived Utility or COP Model.

This model examines three main factors in any piece of news:

• Veracity – How true the information is
• Emotional appeal – How it makes you feel
• Relevance – How closely it connects to your life

These factors shape how people judge whether a story is worth reading, liking, or sharing. Overlaying this is the Overton window, a political science concept that describes the range of ideas the public considers acceptable at a given time. If fake news falls within that window, or pushes its boundaries just enough, it's more likely to be embraced.

Testing the Theory

To test their theory, the researchers analyzed over 10,000 tweets about COVID-19. They looked at which tweets were "liked" and which were "ratioed" (received more negative comments than likes, signaling public disapproval). They also conducted emotion and sentiment analyses to gauge tone, trust, and relevance.

"We found the Overton window plays a significant role in the response to fake news. It determined whether the fake news would be acceptable or unacceptable to people," George said.

The researchers discovered that people are highly sensitive to emotional tone, particularly negative emotions like fear, anger, and disgust. Even when a tweet was less truthful, if it struck the right emotional chord and felt relevant to a person's life, it was more likely to be liked and shared. Interestingly, users were more forgiving of false information if the story felt emotionally satisfying. This tendency was much stronger with fake news than with traditional tabloid journalism, where readers typically know they're not getting hard facts.

"A really interesting finding was that rather than providing information, fake news provided more emotional support in uncertain times, given we were analyzing fake news data from the COVID-19 pandemic," said George.

Implications and Future Steps

This research comes at a crucial time. With AI-generated content flooding our feeds, understanding how and why fake news spreads is more urgent than ever.

The study offers practical insights. For example, the "ratio" of likes to replies on social media could help platforms flag potentially misleading or inflammatory content. Emotional tone, not just fact-checking, should be part of the detection process, according to the authors.

The findings also highlight the importance of media literacy and the need to teach people not only how to spot falsehoods but also how to recognize when their emotions are being manipulated.

Countries like Finland already include media literacy in school curricula starting in kindergarten. The researchers suggest similar programs could help inoculate the public against emotionally-driven misinformation.

Perhaps most importantly, the study shows how fake news can shift the boundaries of public discourse. When emotional stories are widely accepted, they slowly stretch the Overton Window, making extreme or previously unthinkable ideas feel normal.

"We're not just talking about what people believe," George said. "We're talking about what becomes acceptable to believe. And that's a much bigger deal."