Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:23:45.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Emotions and the QAnon Conspiracy Theory

from Part II - Recruiting and Maintaining Followers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2023

By
Elena Bessarabova  and
John A. Banas
Edited by
Monica K. Miller
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Get access

Summary

Emotions have profound consequences for human functioning. Their influences can be adaptive, guiding people through life and ensuring effective functionality within society, but emotions can also result in irrationality and bias. This chapter focuses on the role of emotion in conspiratorial beliefs, using the QAnon conspiracy theory as an example. Within the chapter, we discuss affective factors that make QAnon appealing to its followers and the role of discrete emotions in the spread of misinformation and conspiratorial beliefs. The chapter also examines the influence of emotions on information processing. Given QAnon supporters’ strong emotional involvement in the movement, we discuss affective influences on information processing through the lens of affective polarization. In addition, we explain how emotions, particularly anger, influence the propensity towards extreme and sometimes violent action that has been on the rise among the followers of QAnon. The chapter concludes with a discussion of potential mitigating variables and strategies that might curb proliferation of QAnon.

Keywords

emotionsfearangeranxietyconspiracyQAnonpositive affectnegative affectaffective polarizationmisinformationmisperceptionsactivism
Type
Chapter
Information
The Social Science of QAnon
A New Social and Political Phenomenon
 , pp. 87 - 103
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AP News. (2020, December 22). Man gets prison for 2018 armed Hoover Dam bridge barricade. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/kingman-las-vegas-arizona-colorado-river-nevada-f1ab90c182bbd94a1511a3cdb8f6786aGoogle Scholar
Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 303–311.Google Scholar
Arpan, L. M., & Nabi, R. L. (2011). Exploring anger in the hostile media process: Effects on news preferences and source evaluation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 5–22.Google Scholar
Austin, L., Overton, H., McKeever, B. W., & Bortree, D. (2020). Examining the rage donation trend: Applying the anger activism model to explore communication and donation behaviors. Public Relations Review, 46, 1–8.Google Scholar
Banas, J. A., & Miller, G. (2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and meta-inoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 40, 1–24.Google Scholar
Banas, J. A., & Rains, S. A. (2010). A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Communication Monographs, 77, 281–311.Google Scholar
Banas, J. A., Bessarabova, E., Talbert, N., & Penkauskas, M. (2022). Inoculating against anti-vax conspiracies. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Beckett, L. (2020, October 16) QAnon: A timeline of violence linked to the conspiracy theory. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/qanon-violence-crimes-timelineGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. (2011). Arousal increases social transmission of information. Psychological Science, 22, 891–893.Google Scholar
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessarabova, E., Banas, J. A., & Bernard, D. R. (2020). Emotional appeals in message design. In O’Hair, D. & O’Hair, M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied communication research (pp. 103–122). Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessarabova, E., Piercy, C., King, S., Vincent, C., Dunbar, N. E., Burgoon, J. K., Miller, C. H., Jensen, M., Elkins, A., Wilson, D., Wilson, S. N., & Lee, Y.-H. (2016). Mitigating bias blind spot via a serious video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 452–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessarabova, E., Turner, M. M., Fink, E. L., & Blustein, N. B. (2015). Extending the theory of reactance to guilt appeals: “You ain’t guiltin’ me into nothin’.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 215–224.Google Scholar
Brean, H., & Hawkins, D. (2018, July 13). Suspect in Hoover Dam standoff writes Trump, cites conspiracy in letters. Las Vegas Review Journal. www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/suspect-in-hoover-dam-standoff-writes-trump-cites-conspiracy-in-letters/Google Scholar
Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cotter, E. M. (2008). Influence of emotional content and perceived relevance on spread of urban legends: A pilot study. Psychological Reports, 102, 623–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, D. A. (2021, February 11). After the ballots are counted: Conspiracies, political violence, and American exceptionalism. The American Survey Center. www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/Google Scholar
Daly, K. (2020, August 18). How QAnon works like a video game to hook people? Axios. www.axios.com/qanon-video-game-cbbacb1e-969c-4f07-93cd-69e41bc6feeb.htmlGoogle Scholar
DeSteno, D., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Wegener, D. T., & Braverman, J. (2004). Discrete emotions and persuasion: The role of emotion-induced expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 43–56.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2018). Why conspiracy theories matter: A social psychological analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 256–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019). Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 40, 3–35.Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 115–143.Google Scholar
Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2007). Conspiracy thinking and state–trait anxiety in young Polish adults. Psychological Reports, 100, 199–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2013). The effect of high-anxiety situations on conspiracy thinking. Current Psychology, 32, 100–118.Google Scholar
Han, Y.-H., & Arpan, L. (2017). The effects of news bias-induced anger, anxiety, and issue novelty on subsequent news preferences. Advances in Journalism and Communication, 5, 256–277.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Bell, C., & Sternberg, E. (2001). Emotional selection in memes: The case of urban legends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1028–1041.Google Scholar
Hoback, C. (2021). Q: Into the storm [Documentary]. HBO.Google Scholar
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., Criegler, A., & MacKuen, M. (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (pp. 202–230). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hwang, H., Pan, Z., & Sun, Y. (2008). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role of media indignation. Media Psychology, 11, 76–97.Google Scholar
Ilakkuvan, V., Turner, M. M., Cantrell, J., Hair, E., & Vallone, D. (2017). The relationship between advertising-induced anger and self-efficacy on persuasive outcomes. Family & Community Health, 40(1), 72–80.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Y., Dunbar, N., Miller, C. H., Bessarabova, E., Jensen, M., Wilson, S. N., Elizondo, J., Burgoon, J., & Valacich, J. (2021). Mitigating bias and improving professional decision making through digital game play. In Raessens, J., Schouten, B., Jansz, J., Conde-Pumpido, T. d. l. H., Kors, M., & Jacobs, R. (Eds.), Persuasive gaming in context (pp. 239–258). Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R., & Kesling, B. (2021, January 27). DHS issues its first national terrorism bulletin for domestic extremists. Wall Street Journal. www.wsj.com/articles/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-alert-for-domestic-extremists-11611770893Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.Google Scholar
MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 440–458.Google Scholar
Matthes, J. (2011). Exposure to counterattitudinal news coverage and the timing of voting decisions. Communication Research, 39, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24, 184–197.Google Scholar
Meirick, P. C., & Bessarabova, E. (2016). Epistemic factors in selective exposure and political misperceptions on the right and left. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 16(1), 36–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C. A., III, Southwick, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G. A., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Na, K., Garrett, R. K., & Slater, M. D. (2018). Rumor acceptance during public health crises: Testing the emotional congruence hypothesis, Journal of Health Communication, 23(8), 791–799.Google Scholar
Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30, 224–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, K., Kashima, Y., & Clark, A. (2009). Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 207–222.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2016). Partisanship and political animosity in 2016. www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/Google Scholar
Preston, S., Anderson, A., Robertson, D. J., Shephard, M. P., & Huhe, N. (2021). Detecting fake news on Facebook: The role of emotional intelligence. PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0246757.Google Scholar
Radnitz, S., & Underwood, P. (2017). Is belief in conspiracy theories pathological? A survey on the cognitive roots of extreme suspicion. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 113–129.Google Scholar
Reis, J., Benevenuto, F., Olmo, P., Prates, R., Kwak, H., & An, J. (2015). Breaking the news: First impressions matter on online news. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2015, Oxford, UK, May 26–29 (pp. 357–366). https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/5339Google Scholar
Roose, K. (2021, June 15). What is QAnon, the viral pro-Trump conspiracy theory? New York Times. www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-qanon.htmlGoogle Scholar
Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 22, 570–580.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C., & Dunning, D. (2021). Cognitive and emotional correlates of belief in political misinformation: Who endorses partisan misbeliefs? Emotion, 21(5), 1091–1102.Google Scholar
Skurka, C. (2019). You mad? Using anger appeals to promote activism intentions and policy support in the context of sugary drink marketing to kids. Health Communication, 34(14), 1775–1787.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.Google Scholar
Starcke, K., & Brand, M. (2012). Decision making under stress: A selective review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1228–1248.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Furnham, A., Smyth, N., Weis, L., Lay, A., & Clow, A. (2016). Putting the stress on conspiracy theories: Examining associations between psychological stress, anxiety, and belief in conspiracy theories, Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 72–76.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Furnham, A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, 133(3), 572–585.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tornoe, R. (2021, March 1). Journalists battle the misinformation pandemic Editor & Publisher. www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/journalists-battle-the-misinformation-pandemic,187699Google Scholar
Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism model. Public Relations Review, 33, 114–119.Google Scholar
Turner, M. M., Richards, A. S., Bessarabova, E., & Magid, Y. (2020). The effects of anger appeals on systematic processing and intentions: The moderating role of efficacy. Communication Reports, 33, 14–26.Google Scholar
Turton, W., & Brustein, J. (2020, October 7). QAnon high priest was just trolling away as a Citigroup tech executive. Bloomberg. www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-10-07/who-is-qanon-evangelist-qmap-creator-and-former-citigroup-exec-jason-gelinasGoogle Scholar
Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. H., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the Internet. Political Psychology, 29, 247–273.Google Scholar
van Zomeren, M., Saguy, T., Mazzoni, D., & Cicognani, E. (2018). The curious, context-dependent case of anger: Explaining voting intentions in three different national elections. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 329–338.Google Scholar
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447.Google Scholar
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.Google Scholar
Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65, 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, B. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2019). Emotional characteristics of social media and political misperceptions. In Katz, J. E. & Mays, K. K. (Eds.), Journalism and truth in an age of social media (pp. 236–250). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×