The first article resulting from a collaboration led by my graduate student Miranda Na has been accepted for publication published in the Journal of Health Communication. The article introduces the idea that “emotional congruence” can influence whether or not someone believes an unsubstantiated claim. When the emotions associated with the claim are consistent with the emotions that the individual is already experiencing, belief becomes more likely. The results of the study, which used a simulated health crisis as a test, are consistent with this idea.

This is the first in a series of studies, and it is at the core of Miranda’s dissertation.  Here’s the abstract:

Rumors pose a significant challenge to officials combating a public health crisis. The flow of unsubstantiated and often inaccurate information can dilute the effects of more accurate messaging. Understanding why rumors thrive in this context is a crucial first step to constraining them. We propose a novel mechanism for explaining rumor acceptance during a health crisis, arguing that the congruence between one’s emotional state and the emotion induced by a rumor leads people to believe the rumor. Data collected using a novel experimental design provide preliminary evidence for our emotional congruence hypothesis. Participants who felt angry were more likely to accept anger-inducing rumors than those who were not angry. We discuss the implications of this insight for public health officials combating rumors during a health crisis.

Na, K., Garrett, R. K., & Slater, M. D. (2018). Rumor Acceptance during Public Health Crises: Testing the Emotional Congruence Hypothesis. Journal of Health Communication, 23(8), 791-799. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1527877