The Influence of Affective Empathy on Online News Belief: The Moderated Mediation of State Empathy and News Type.

Yifan Yu, Shizhen Yan, Qihan Zhang, Zhenzhen Xu, Guangfang Zhou, Hua Jin
Author Information
  1. Yifan Yu: Department of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China.
  2. Shizhen Yan: School of Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350122, China.
  3. Qihan Zhang: Department of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China.
  4. Zhenzhen Xu: Department of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China.
  5. Guangfang Zhou: Department of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China.
  6. Hua Jin: Department of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China. ORCID

Abstract

The belief in online news has become a topical issue. Previous studies demonstrated the role emotion plays in fake news vulnerability. However, few studies have explored the effect of empathy on online news belief. This study investigated the relationship between trait empathy, state empathy, belief in online news, and the potential moderating effect of news type. One hundred and forty undergraduates evaluated 50 online news pieces (25 real, 25 fake) regarding their belief, state empathy, valence, arousal, and familiarity. Trait empathy data were collected using the Chinese version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. State empathy was positively correlated with affective empathy in trait empathy and believability, and affective empathy was positively correlated with believability. The influence of affective empathy on news belief was partially mediated by state empathy and regulated by news type (fake, real). We discuss the influence of empathy on online news belief and its internal processes. This study shares some unique insights for researchers, practitioners, social media users, and social media platform providers.

Keywords

References

  1. Neuroimage. 2014 Oct 1;99:312-22 [PMID: 24844739]
  2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Nov;77(5):1073-86 [PMID: 10573881]
  3. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017 Aug;18(8):498-509 [PMID: 28655877]
  4. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020 Dec;36:44-48 [PMID: 32521507]
  5. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Aug;149(8):1608-1613 [PMID: 31916834]
  6. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Nov 5;5(1):55 [PMID: 33151449]
  7. Front Psychol. 2018 Nov 13;9:2212 [PMID: 30483202]
  8. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Dec;7(12):527-33 [PMID: 14643368]
  9. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2023 Mar 2;:1461672231154886 [PMID: 36861421]
  10. Psychol Bull. 1998 Sep;124(2):165-96 [PMID: 9747185]
  11. PLoS One. 2022 Mar 10;17(3):e0262196 [PMID: 35271566]
  12. Neuroimage. 2015 Aug 15;117:305-10 [PMID: 26008886]
  13. ScientificWorldJournal. 2006 Sep 20;6:1146-63 [PMID: 16998603]
  14. Pers Individ Dif. 2023 Jan;200:111893 [PMID: 36089997]
  15. Cognition. 2019 Jul;188:39-50 [PMID: 29935897]
  16. Autism. 2023 Apr;27(3):690-703 [PMID: 35833505]
  17. Cereb Cortex. 2014 Aug;24(8):2189-98 [PMID: 23535178]
  18. Neuroscientist. 2011 Feb;17(1):18-24 [PMID: 21071616]
  19. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Dec;147(12):1865-1880 [PMID: 30247057]
  20. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Nov 11;5(1):56 [PMID: 33175284]
  21. Sci Rep. 2023 Feb 24;13(1):3201 [PMID: 36828879]
  22. Front Psychiatry. 2022 Jun 15;13:912397 [PMID: 35782415]
  23. PLoS One. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0246757 [PMID: 33705405]
  24. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016 Apr 12;10:67 [PMID: 27147990]
  25. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 14;20(4): [PMID: 36834021]
  26. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Oct 7;5(1):47 [PMID: 33026546]
  27. Cogn Emot. 2022 Sep;36(6):1166-1180 [PMID: 35749076]
  28. J Pers. 2020 Apr;88(2):185-200 [PMID: 30929263]
  29. Psychol Sci. 2013 Oct;24(10):1918-27 [PMID: 23955356]
  30. J Soc Psychol. 2022 Jan 2;162(1):143-160 [PMID: 35083952]
  31. Cereb Cortex. 2007 Sep;17(9):2223-34 [PMID: 17150987]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0empathynewsbeliefonlinefakeaffectivestatestudieseffectstudytraittype25realStatepositivelycorrelatedbelievabilityinfluencesocialmediaEmpathyNewsbecometopicalissuePreviousdemonstratedroleemotionplaysvulnerabilityHoweverexploredinvestigatedrelationshippotentialmoderatingOnehundredfortyundergraduatesevaluated50piecesregardingvalencearousalfamiliarityTraitdatacollectedusingChineseversionInterpersonalReactivityIndexpartiallymediatedregulateddiscussinternalprocessessharesuniqueinsightsresearcherspractitionersusersplatformprovidersInfluenceAffectiveOnlineBelief:ModeratedMediationType

Similar Articles

Cited By