IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijpsjl/v5y2013i4p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do People Disseminate Fictitious Accounts? A Systematic Analysis of snopes.com

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Moss
  • Samuel G. Wilson

Abstract

People often disseminate fictitious information and contrived anecdotes, some of which can be destructive. Thispaper explores the proposition that most, if not all, fictitious information can be classified into four clusters.Each cluster reinforces one of four underlying determinants of positive emotions—unambiguous duties, moralauthorities, extensive capabilities, and stable values over time. This framework is derived from socio-emotionalselectivity theory, self-discrepancy theory, and the meaning maintenance model. To assess these propositions,1500 fictitious claims, derived from snopes.com, were subjected to thematic analysis. To code these claims, allnouns and verbs were translated to broader categories. Then, researchers sorted these abstracted claims into 88piles of overlapping accounts. These 88 accounts were next sorted into 19 broader piles, each reflecting a distincttheme. All 19 themes aligned to one of the four underling determinants of positive emotions. These findingsindicate that, arguably, the need to curb negative emotions and to foster positive emotions motivates these biasedand fictitious accounts. The findings also highlight several distinct avenues in which each of these four needs canbe fulfilled. The implications of these findings to a range of issues, from violence and mental illness toadvertising and marketing, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Moss & Samuel G. Wilson, 2013. "Why do People Disseminate Fictitious Accounts? A Systematic Analysis of snopes.com," International Journal of Psychological Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijpsjl:v:5:y:2013:i:4:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijps/article/download/31723/18497
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijps/article/view/31723
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonard Lee & On Amir & Dan Ariely, 2009. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Cognitive Noise and the Role of Emotion in Preference Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 173-187.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Adam, Marc T.P. & Krämer, Jan & Müller, Marius B., 2015. "Auction Fever! How Time Pressure and Social Competition Affect Bidders’ Arousal and Bids in Retail Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 468-485.
    3. Aydinli, Aylin & Gu, Yangjie & Pham, Michel Tuan, 2017. "An experience-utility explanation of the preference for larger assortments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 746-760.
    4. Lamberto Zollo, 2021. "The Consumers’ Emotional Dog Learns to Persuade Its Rational Tail: Toward a Social Intuitionist Framework of Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(2), pages 295-313, January.
    5. Darren W Dahl & Eileen Fischer & Gita V Johar & Vicki G Morwitz, 2017. "Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 719-723.
    6. Raphael Thomadsen & Robert P. Rooderkerk & On Amir & Neeraj Arora & Bryan Bollinger & Karsten Hansen & Leslie John & Wendy Liu & Aner Sela & Vishal Singh & K. Sudhir & Wendy Wood, 2018. "How Context Affects Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 3-14, March.
    7. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    8. Pham, Michel Tuan & Faraji-Rad, Ali & Toubia, Olivier & Lee, Leonard, 2015. "Affect as an ordinal system of utility assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 81-94.
    9. Sean Duffy & J. J. Naddeo & David Owens & John Smith, 2024. "Cognitive Load and Mixed Strategies: On Brains and Minimax," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(03), pages 1-34, September.
    10. Wadhwa, Monica & Zhang, Kuangjie, 2019. "When numbers make you feel: Impact of round versus precise numbers on preventive health behaviors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 101-111.
    11. Jeffrey Butler & Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli, 2014. "The role of intuition and reasoning in driving aversion to risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 455-484, December.
    12. Frank, Björn & Herbas Torrico, Boris & Enkawa, Takao & Schvaneveldt, Shane J., 2014. "Affect versus Cognition in the Chain from Perceived Quality to Customer Loyalty: The Roles of Product Beliefs and Experience," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(4), pages 567-586.
    13. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Kao Si & Xianchi Dai, 2022. "The memory-search frame effect: impacts on consumers’ retrieval and evaluation of consumption experiences," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 5-17, March.
    15. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2014. "Manipulating decision making of typical agents," Papers 1409.0636, arXiv.org.
    16. Jeffrey V. Butler & Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli, 2013. "Manipulating Reliance on Intuition Reduces Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," EIEF Working Papers Series 1301, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF), revised Jan 2013.
    17. Christian Julmi, 2019. "When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 291-314, April.
    18. Van Kerckhove, Anneleen & Geuens, Maggie & Vermeir, Iris, 2012. "Intention superiority perspectives on preference-decision consistency," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 692-700.
    19. Kahn, Barbara E., 2017. "Using Visual Design to Improve Customer Perceptions of Online Assortments," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 29-42.
    20. Dwyer, Brendan & Slavich, Mark A. & Gellock, Jennifer L., 2018. "A fan’s search for meaning: Testing the dimensionality of sport fan superstition," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 533-548.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:ijpsjl:v:5:y:2013:i:4:p:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.