Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empathy vs Reluctance to Challenge Misinformation: The Mediating Role of Relationship Costs, Perspective Taking, and Need for Cognition

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 513))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 26 Accesses

Abstract

Misinformation can harm individuals and societies, with social media and online communities amplifying its reach and impact. One effective strategy to counteract the spread of misinformation online is social corrections, in which people on social media actively challenge others who post or spread it. People hesitate to do so for reasons related to empathy, fear of affecting their relationships, futility, and subjective norms. This research aims to explore the impact of empathy on individuals’ willingness to challenge misinformation. The research also investigates the mediation role of the personal factors of perspective-taking and the need for cognition, along with the perceived impacts on their relationships, on the relationship between empathy and the willingness to challenge. The data was collected from 250 UK-based social networking users and then analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. The results of the analysis supported that perspective-taking (β = 0.064, p = 0.011), the need for cognition (β = 0.022, p = 0.048), and perceived relationship costs (β = 0.035, p = 0.003) all fully mediated the impact of empathy on the willingness to challenge misinformation. The results also show that empathy does not have a direct impact on willingness to challenge misinformation. Individuals with varying levels of empathy converge in their attitudes toward challenging misinformation influenced by a combination of cognitive processes and considerations of their relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

The raw data required to reproduce the above findings are available at: https://osf.io/uny7g/?view_only=365026b20d134902b6e23b4c98b16007.

References

  1. Barua, Z., Barua, S., Aktar, S., Kabir, N., Li, M.: Effects of misinformation on COVID-19 individual responses and recommendations for resilience of disastrous consequences of misinformation. Progress Disaster Sci. 8, 100119 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Belloir, N., Ouerdane, W., Pastor, O., Frugier, É., de Barmon, L.-A.: A conceptual characterization of fake news: a positioning paper. In: Guizzardi, R., Ralyté, J., Franch, X. (eds.) RCIS 2022, pp. 662–669. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05760-1_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu, L., Morstatter, F., Carley, K.M., Liu, H.: Misinformation in social media: definition, manipulation, and detection. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 21(2), 80–90 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3373464.3373475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Karlova, N.A., Fisher, K.E.: A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behaviour (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J.: When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Pol. Beh. 32(2), 303–330 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gurgun, S., Cemiloglu, D., Close, E.A., Phalp, K., Nakov, P., Ali, R.: Why do we not stand up to misinformation? Factors influencing the likelihood of challenging misinformation on social media and the role of demographics. Technol. Soc. 76, 102444 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stahl, B.C.: On the difference or equality of information, misinformation, and disinformation: a critical research perspective. Inf. Sci. 9, 83 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bode, L., Vraga, E.K.: See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 33(9), 1131–1140 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen, S., Xiao, L., Kumar, A.: Spread of misinformation on social media: what contributes to it and how to combat it. Comput. Hum. Beh. 141, 107643 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Grubic, N., et al.: Mediators of the association between socioeconomic status and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Canadian J. Cardiol. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2024.01.002

  11. Decety, J., Michalska, K.J.: A developmental neuroscience perspective on empathy. In: Neural Circuit and Cognitive Development, pp. 485–503. Elsevier (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Li, X., et al.: Indirect aggression and parental attachment in early adolescence: examining the role of perspective taking and empathetic concern. Personality Individ. Differ. 86, 499–503 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis, M.H.: 23 Empathy, Compassion, and Social Relationships. The Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science, vol. 299 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hafenbrack, A.C., Cameron, L.D., Spreitzer, G.M., Zhang, C., Noval, L.J., Shaffakat, S.: Helping people by being in the present: mindfulness increases prosocial behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 159, 21–38 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fu, W., Wang, C., Chai, H., Xue, R.: Examining the relationship of empathy, social support, and prosocial behavior of adolescents in China: a structural equation modeling approach. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9(1), 1–8 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Decety, J.: Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emot. Rev. 3(1), 92–108 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Galinsky, A.D., Ku, G., Wang, C.S.: Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 8(2), 109–124 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cole, G.G., Millett, A.C.: The closing of the theory of mind: a critique of perspective-taking. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26, 1787–1802 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Batson, C.D., Early, S., Salvarani, G.: Perspective taking: imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23(7), 751–758 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297237008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Myyry, L., Juujärvi, S., Pesso, K.: Empathy, perspective taking and personal values as predictors of moral schemas. J Moral. Educ. 39, 213–233 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/03057241003754955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Decety, J.: Perspective taking as the royal avenue to empathy. Other Minds How Hum. Brid. Div. Between Self Others 143, 157 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tamnes, C.K., et al.: Social perspective taking is associated with self-reported prosocial behavior and regional cortical thickness across adolescence. Dev. Psychol. 54(9), 1745 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Decety, J., Cowell, J.M.: The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18(7), 337–339 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang, Y., Tian, Y., Yao, L., Duan, C., Sun, X., Niu, G.: Teaching presence promotes learner affective engagement: the roles of cognitive load and need for cognition. Teach. Teach. Educ. 129, 104167 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lavrijsen, J., Preckel, F., Verschueren, K.: Seeking, mastering, and enjoying cognitive effort: scrutinizing the role of need for cognition in academic achievement. Learn. Individ. Diff. 107, 102363 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Double, K.S., Cavanagh, M.: Need for cognition predicts the accuracy of affective forecasts. Person. Individ. Diff. 216, 112399 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E.: The need for cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 42(1), 116 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gurgun, S., Arden-Close, E., Phalp, K., Ali, R.: Online silence: why do people not challenge others when posting misinformation? Internet Research, no. ahead-of-print (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R.: Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gurgun, S., Cemiloglu, D., Arden-Close, E., Phalp, K., Nakov, P., Ali, R.: Challenging Misinformation on Social Media: Users’ Perceptions and Misperceptions and their Impact on the Willingness to Challenge (2023). Available at SSRN 4440292

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang, Z.-X., Zhang, Y., Wang, M.: Harmony, illusory relationship costs, and conflict resolution in Chinese contexts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Davis, M.H.: A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Thompson, M.E.: The impact of need for cognition on thinking about free speech issues. J. Mass Commun. Quart. 72(4), 934–947 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cohen, E.L., et al.: To correct or not to correct? Social identity threats increase willingness to denounce fake news through presumed media influence and hostile media perceptions. Commun. Res. Rep. 37(5), 263–275 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., Thompson, R.: The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modeling: personal computer adoption ans use as an Illustration (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hair, J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, pp. 184–185. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hair Jr., J., Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Clark, L.A., Watson, D.: Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kock, N.: Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. (IJEC) 11(4), 1–10 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Xie, Y., Siponen, M., Laatikainen, G., Moody, G.D., Zheng, X.: Testing the dominant mediator in EPPM: an empirical study on household anti-malware software users. Comput. Secur. 140, 103776 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.103776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nitzl, C., Roldán, J., Cepeda-Carrion, G.: Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116, 1849–1864 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Van der Graaff, J., Carlo, G., Crocetti, E., Koot, H.M., Branje, S.: Prosocial behavior in adolescence: gender differences in development and links with empathy. J. Youth Adolesc. 47(5), 1086–1099 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0786-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bohns, V.K., Flynn, F.J.: Empathy and expectations of others’ willingness to help. Person. Individ. Differ. 168, 110368 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Persson, B.N., Kajonius, P.J.: Empathy and universal values explicated by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. J. Soc. Psychol. 156(6), 610–619 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1152212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kim, E.K., You, S., Knox, J.: The mediating effect of empathy on the relation between child self-expressiveness in family and prosocial behaviors. J. Child Family Stud. 29(6), 1572–1581 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01676-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sassenrath, C., Vorauer, J.D., Hodges, S.D.: The link between perspective-taking and prosociality — not as universal as you might think. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 44, 94–99 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shih, M., Wang, E., Trahan Bucher, A., Stotzer, R.: Perspective taking: reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals. Group Processes Intergroup Rel. 12(5), 565–577 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ku, G., Wang, C.S., Galinsky, A.D.: The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Res. Organ. Beh. 35, 79–102 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2015.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Galinsky, A.D., Maddux, W.W., Gilin, D., White, J.B.: Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: the differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychol. Sci. 19(4), 378–384 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gilin, D., Maddux, W.W., Carpenter, J., Galinsky, A.D.: When to use your head and when to use your heart: the differential value of perspective-taking versus empathy in competitive interactions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39(1), 3–16 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212465320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang, C.S., Ku, G., Tai, K., Galinsky, A.D.: Stupid doctors and smart construction workers: perspective-taking reduces stereotyping of both negative and positive targets. Soc. Psychol. Person. Sci. 5(4), 430–436 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Day, E.A., Espejo, J., Kowollik, V., Boatman, P.R., McEntire, L.E.: Modeling the links between need for cognition and the acquisition of a complex skill. Personality Individ. Differ. 42(2), 201–212 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L.: The fit of thinking style and situation: new measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. J. Consum. Res. 36(1), 56–72 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nussbaum, E.M.: The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30(3), 286–313 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Xiao, X., Su, Y., Lee, D.K.L.: Who consumes new media content more wisely? Examining personality factors, SNS use, and new media literacy in the era of misinformation. Soc. Media+ Soc. 7(1), 2056305121990635 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Austin, E.W., Muldrow, A., Austin, B.W.: Examining how media literacy and personality factors predict skepticism toward alcohol advertising. J. Health Commun. 21(5), 600–609 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Su, Y., Lee, D.K.L., Xiao, X., Li, W., Shu, W.: Who endorses conspiracy theories? A moderated mediation model of Chinese and international social media use, media skepticism, need for cognition, and COVID-19 conspiracy theory endorsement in China. Comput. Hum. Beh. 120, 106760 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Brandtzæg, P.B., Heim, J.: Why people use social networking sites. In: Ozok, A.A., Zaphiris, P. (eds.) OCSC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5621, pp. 143–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Noelle-Neumann, E.: The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. J. Commun. 24(2), 43–51 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Oshagan, H.: Reference group influence on opinion expression. Int. J. Pub. Opinion Res. 8(4), 335–354 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Chun, J.W., Lee, M.J.: “Understanding empowerment process of willingness to speak out on social media: amplifying effect of supportive communication. Telem. Inform. 66, 101735 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Buijzen, M., Van Reijmersdal, E.A., Owen, L.H.: Introducing the PCMC model: an investigative framework for young people’s processing of commercialized media content. Commun. Theory 20(4), 427–450 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yiend, J.: The effects of emotion on attention: a review of attentional processing of emotional information. Cogn. Emot. 24(1), 3–47 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Grimm, P.: Social desirability bias. Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bautista, J.R., Zhang, Y., Gwizdka, J.: Predicting healthcare professionals’ intention to correct health misinformation on social media. Telematics Inform. 73, 101864 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This publication was made possible by the NPRP 14 Cluster Grant Number NPRP14C-37878-SP-470 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The results herein reflect the work and are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    Rabab Ali Abumalloh & Osama Halabi

  2. Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK

    Selin Gurgun, Keith Phalp & Vasilis Katos

  3. College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar

    Muaadh Noman & Raian Ali

Authors
  1. Rabab Ali Abumalloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Selin Gurgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muaadh Noman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keith Phalp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Osama Halabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vasilis Katos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Raian Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Rabab Ali Abumalloh or Raian Ali .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. NOVA University Lisbon, Caparica, Portugal

    João Araújo

  2. University of Castilla La Mancha, Albacete, Albacete, Spain

    Jose Luis de la Vara

  3. University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

    Maribel Yasmina Santos

  4. Institut Mines-Télécom Business School, Evry, France

    Saïd Assar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Abumalloh, R.A. et al. (2024). Empathy vs Reluctance to Challenge Misinformation: The Mediating Role of Relationship Costs, Perspective Taking, and Need for Cognition. In: Araújo, J., de la Vara, J.L., Santos, M.Y., Assar, S. (eds) Research Challenges in Information Science. RCIS 2024. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 513. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59465-6_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59465-6_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-59464-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-59465-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation