A systematic review of the relationship between emotion and susceptibility to misinformation

ABSTRACT

Inaccurate memory reports can have serious consequences within forensic and clinical settings, where emotion and misinformation are two common sources of memory distortion. Many studies have investigated how these factors are related; does emotion protect memory or leave it more vulnerable to the distorting effects of misinformation? The findings remain diffused. Thus, the present review aimed to clarify the relationship between emotion and susceptibility to misinformation. 39 eligible studies were reviewed. Results varied according to the type and dimension of emotion measured. Level of arousal may be unrelated to susceptibility to misinformation when retrieval occurs without delay; studies including delayed retrieval were limited. Stimuli valence may be associated with increased susceptibility to peripheral misinformation but unrelated to other misinformation. The following results were reported by limited studies: short-term distress and moderate levels of stress may decrease susceptibility, while anger and greater cortisol response to stress may increase susceptibility to misinformation. Source memory may also be unaffected by emotion. The results have important potential implications for forensic and clinical practice, for example by highlighting the value of enquiring witnesses’ source memory. Methodological recommendations for future studies are made.

KEYWORDS:

• Emotion
• misinformation
• suggestibility
• suggestion-induced false memories

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Cassandra McEwen for her help with gathering the quality assessment criteria. The researchers (PS and LJ) wish to acknowledge the people of the Kulin Nations on whose land the research was conducted. We pay our respects to their Elders, past and present.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Studies were excluded as having “wrong study design” if they reviewed existing studies and did not report independent results (i.e., met exclusion criteria #3)

2 Studies were excluded as having “wrong outcomes” if they did not report the relationship between participants” emotions and measure of misinformation endorsed (i.e., did not meet inclusion criteria #3).

3 Where studies included material with varying arousal and valence and have reported results separately (k = 5), the results are discussed under their respective subheadings. Studies that included both but did not report arousal results (k = 1), controlled for arousal (k = 1), or had material with comparable arousal (k = 3), results are discussed under the “stimuli valence” subheadings.

4 The IAPS images are a standardised set of images, with mean arousal and valence ratings for each image (see Lang et al., 2005, 2008). Average arousal and valence ratings for the images used can be found in the respective reviewed studies.

5 Note that while Hess et al. (2012) didn't identify their questions as 'major misinformation', some of their misleading questions also "introduced a new object or action" (p.19).

6 Drivdahl et al. (2009)

7 Otgaar et al. (2017)

8 Colombetti (2005)

9 Segovia et al. (2017)

10 Gable and Harmon-Jones (2010)