Why People Fall for Fake News Even When They Doubt It, According to a New Study

A new academic study is shedding light on a question many of us quietly ask ourselves while scrolling through social media: why do people fall for fake news even when they know it might not be true? The research suggests the answer has far less to do with ignorance or blind belief and far more to do with emotions, relevance, and social acceptance.

The study was conducted by researchers from Georgia State University’s Robinson College of Business, Kennesaw State University, and the University of Tennessee, and it takes a deep dive into how fake news is consumed and shared, particularly during periods of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic. Their findings challenge some long-held assumptions about misinformation and offer a more nuanced explanation for why fake news spreads so easily online.

Moving Beyond the Confirmation Bias Explanation

For years, the dominant explanation for fake news consumption has been confirmation bias. This idea suggests that people believe false information simply because it aligns with their existing political views, beliefs, or opinions. While confirmation bias certainly plays a role, the researchers behind this study argue that it doesn’t tell the whole story.

Their work shows that people often consume fake news differently than they consume tabloids. Tabloid content is usually read for entertainment, and readers are generally aware that it’s exaggerated or unreliable. Fake news, on the other hand, presents itself as legitimate journalism and is often treated as useful, meaningful, or emotionally validating, even when the information is incorrect.

In uncertain and emotionally charged situations, accuracy can take a back seat to how a piece of content makes someone feel.

What Exactly Counts as Fake News in This Study

To avoid confusion, the researchers clearly defined what they meant by fake news. In this study, fake news refers to articles that pose as legitimate news, originate from non-institutional journalistic sources, contain verifiably false information, and are created with the intent to deceive.

This distinction matters because fake news is not simply low-quality journalism or satire. It is designed to influence beliefs, emotions, and behavior while appearing credible.

Introducing the COP Model

At the center of the research is a new framework called the Content Dimensions–Overton Window–Perceived Utility model, or the COP Model.

The model breaks news consumption down into three core content dimensions:

Veracity – how accurate or truthful the information is
Emotional appeal – how strongly the content triggers emotions
Relevance – how closely the information connects to a person’s own life or concerns

These three factors shape whether someone decides a story is worth reading, liking, or sharing. However, the model goes a step further by layering in an important political science concept known as the Overton Window.

The Role of the Overton Window

The Overton Window describes the range of ideas and opinions that society considers acceptable at a given time. Ideas outside this window are often seen as extreme or unacceptable, while ideas inside it feel normal, reasonable, or at least discussable.

According to the study, fake news is more likely to gain traction when it falls within the Overton Window or pushes its boundaries just slightly. When content feels socially acceptable or only mildly controversial, people are more open to engaging with it, even if its accuracy is questionable.

Over time, repeated exposure to emotionally charged fake news can actually shift the Overton Window itself, making once-unthinkable ideas feel normal.

How the Researchers Tested Their Theory

To test the COP Model, the researchers analyzed more than 10,000 tweets related to COVID-19. The pandemic provided an ideal context because it was a period marked by fear, uncertainty, and rapidly changing information.

They examined how users interacted with these tweets, focusing on two key engagement signals:

Tweets that were liked, indicating approval or agreement
Tweets that were ratioed, meaning they received more negative replies than likes, signaling public disapproval

In addition, the team conducted emotion and sentiment analysis to measure tone, trust signals, and perceived relevance.

Emotional Tone Matters More Than Truth

One of the most striking findings was how strongly emotional tone influenced engagement. Tweets that triggered negative emotions such as fear, anger, and disgust were far more likely to be liked and shared, even when they contained false information.

Users were often more forgiving of inaccuracies if the content felt emotionally satisfying or supportive. This effect was significantly stronger with fake news than with tabloid content, where readers typically don’t expect factual accuracy in the first place.

During the pandemic, fake news often acted as a form of emotional support, offering certainty, validation, or a sense of control in a chaotic situation.

Fake News Is Not Just About Information

Another important takeaway is that fake news does not function purely as a source of information. In many cases, it serves an emotional purpose. It can reassure people, reinforce identity, or provide a sense of belonging during uncertain times.

This emotional utility helps explain why people may share fake news even when they privately doubt its accuracy. The content feels useful, not because it is true, but because it meets an emotional need.

Practical Implications for Social Media Platforms

The findings have clear implications for how social media platforms might address misinformation. Traditional approaches focus heavily on fact-checking and labeling content as false or misleading. While important, the study suggests this approach alone is not enough.

The researchers propose that platforms could also look at engagement patterns, such as the ratio of likes to negative replies, as potential indicators of problematic content. Additionally, emotional tone analysis could help flag posts designed to provoke outrage or fear rather than inform.

Why Media Literacy Needs to Go Further

The study also reinforces the importance of media literacy, but with a twist. Teaching people how to verify facts is essential, but it’s equally important to teach them how to recognize emotional manipulation.

Some countries, including Finland, already include media literacy education starting in kindergarten. Programs like these help people understand not just whether something is true, but why it feels convincing.

The Bigger Picture

Perhaps the most concerning implication of the study is how fake news can gradually reshape public discourse. When emotionally charged false stories are widely accepted, they can normalize extreme viewpoints and alter what society considers acceptable to believe.

This goes beyond individual misinformation. It affects cultural norms, political debate, and collective decision-making.

Understanding fake news, then, isn’t just about correcting facts. It’s about understanding how emotions, relevance, and social boundaries interact to shape what we believe and share.

Research paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10796-025-10623-0