Social media virality metrics as interpretive cues: Affective pathways to sharing conflicting health information

Virality metrics—such as the number of likes, shares, and comments—are often conceptualized in digital media research as heuristic or normative cues that help individuals assess credibility, popularity, or social approval. This study proposes instead that virality metrics function as interpretive cues that shape how users emotionally and cognitively engage with conflicting health information on social media. These metrics may influence how people perceive social disagreement, ambiguity, or controversy rather than merely signaling popularity. To examine this idea, an online experiment (N = 876) exposed participants to mock blog posts containing contradictory health claims—about either artificial sweeteners or processed meat—paired with either high or low virality metrics. The results supported a serial mediation model: virality metrics affected sharing intention by increasing perceived controversy, which in turn heightened anxiety and led to greater motivation to share the post. These findings challenge traditional heuristic and normative frameworks, instead positioning virality metrics as emotionally charged and interpretively meaningful cues that influence how users make sense of ambiguous information. The present study contributes to a more psychologically nuanced understanding of digital behavior in complex informational environments. It also raises practical considerations for platform design and health communication, where visible metrics may inadvertently amplify uncertainty, emotional discomfort, and the spread of controversial or ambiguous content—even in the absence of clear credibility cues.