Summary: That heartfelt, tear-filled post about climate change might help you find your “tribe,” but it’s likely turning everyone else off. New research reveals a deep-seated skepticism toward emotional political expression online.
Across six experiments with 6,400 participants, researchers found that viewers—regardless of their own political leanings—rated emotional expressions of fear or sadness as less authentic and less appropriate than neutral, stoic ones. Even when people agreed with the message, they viewed the emotion as a manipulative ploy, essentially accusing the speaker of “crying crocodile tears.”
Key Facts
- The Sincerity Gap: Participants questioned the sincerity of emotions expressed in news reports, texts, and TikToks. Emotional posts were consistently rated as less authentic than factual ones.
- The Visual Penalty: Skepticism was highest when a person’s face was visible (like a sad face on TikTok) compared to just reading emotional text.
- Agreement Doesn’t Save You: Even if a viewer agreed that climate change is a crisis, they still found an emotional advocate less persuasive than a calm one.
- Localized Backlash: The “eye-roll” factor is directed at the person expressing the emotion, not the issue itself. Participants didn’t care less about climate change; they just liked the speaker less.
- Catharsis vs. Influence: While emotional posting is great for community-building and personal catharsis, it fails as a tool for political persuasion.
Source: Cornell University
If you’ve poured your heart out on social media about a political issue, it might have felt cathartic — but it likely wasn’t persuasive, new Cornell University research finds.
Americans are skeptical of emotional comments they see in their news and social media feeds, political scientist Talbot Andrews reports in “Emotions on Our Screens.”
Over six experiments, involving nearly 6,400 participants, viewers questioned the sincerity of fear or sadness people expressed about climate change in simulated news reports, text messages, and TikTok posts. Such comments were rated as less authentic and appropriate than more neutral ones — even when the observer agreed politically with the speaker.
“Making people emotional is a great way to motivate them to care about an issue. But expressing your own emotions is not necessarily going to change others’ minds about that issue,” said Andrews, an assistant professor of government.
With today’s media environment exposing people to emotional expression more than ever, Andrews spoke with the Cornell Chronicle about the findings. Selected excerpts are below.
Skepticism persists across platforms
“We thought people might see emotions as more authentic in news articles, where journalists act as gatekeepers, compared to social media, where people have editorial control before sharing anything. Surprisingly, we didn’t find many differences. Skepticism was stronger when viewers saw a sad face, rather than just text, in simulated TikTok screenshots. People thought that seemed especially inappropriate.”
Political agreement doesn’t eliminate skepticism
“People are skeptical when they disagree with social media posts at all, but the effect of emotional expression is pretty similar either way. We saw the same pattern in an experiment featuring posts from a climate skeptic. People tended to see the emotion as manipulative. Like, ‘I think you’re crying crocodile tears to make me feel bad about this, and I see through that ploy.’”
Emotional posts don’t reduce concern, just raise eyebrows
“[Backlash toward emotional posts] seems localized to the person who’s being emotional. It’s more that people will be skeptical of your sincerity in posting, but participants were no less worried about climate change because they saw someone get emotional about it. Study participants didn’t punish emotional content, just viewed it as less appropriate and authentic than more stoic expressions.”
Expressing emotion can help, even if it doesn’t persuade
“Emotional expression can serve an important role, helping people find a community that cares about their issue. Even if it doesn’t achieve any influential goal — like persuading others or building social media clout — expressing emotions often makes people feel better. The takeaway is not that people should keep their feelings to themselves, but that such expression won’t always be taken at face value.”
Key Questions Answered:
A: It’s a matter of “editorial control.” Because people know you chose to hit record, edit the clip, and post it, they see the emotion as a calculated performance rather than a raw reaction. The screen acts as a barrier that turns genuine sadness into perceived “clout-chasing.”
A: If your goal is persuasion, yes. The study suggests that stoic, fact-based expressions are viewed as more appropriate and trustworthy. However, if your goal is community-building, keep the emotions—they help you find people who already care about your issue.
A: It’s the “sad face” factor. Seeing someone’s actual tears or trembling voice on camera triggers a “manipulation alarm” in our brains. Viewers feel like the speaker is trying to “guilt” them into an opinion, leading to immediate skepticism.
Editorial Notes:
- This article was edited by a Neuroscience News editor.
- Journal paper reviewed in full.
- Additional context added by our staff.
About this emotion, psychology, and social media research news
Author: Ellen Leventry
Source: Cornell University
Contact: Ellen Leventry – Cornell University
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Open access.
“Emotions on Our Screens” by Talbot M. Andrews, Lauren P. Olson, and Yanna Krupnikov. Elements in Politics and Communication
DOI:10.1017/9781009613668
Abstract
Emotions on Our Screens
While scholars have long considered how political messages make people feel, changes in the media environment have given people unprecedented access to the expressed emotions of others.
Through both contemporary news stories and social media, people now learn how others – often strangers – feel about political events. Do people believe in the sincerity of these expressed emotions?
To answer this question, we turn to expressions about one of the most pressing issues of our time: climate change.
We begin with a theoretic framework of the way people perceive mediated emotional expression. Then, across six pre-registered experiments, we find people are generally skeptical of others’ emotional expression – perceiving emotional posts and quotes less authentic and appropriate than more neutral content.
While evaluations vary by platform, our results suggest that emotions online aren’t always taken at face value – complicating the role of these expressed emotions in political communication.
