Accurate modeling of subjective phenomena such as emotion expression requires data annotated with authors’ intentions. Commonly such
data is collected by asking study participants to donate and label genuine content produced in the real world, or create content fitting particular labels during the study. Asking participants to create content is often simpler to implement and presents fewer risks to participant privacy than data donation. However, it is unclear if and how study-created content may differ from genuine content, and how differences may impact models. We collect study-created and genuine multimodal social media posts labeled for emotion and compare them on several dimensions, including model performance. We find that compared to genuine posts, study-created posts are longer, rely more on their text and less on their images for emotion expression, and focus more on emotion-prototypical events. The samples of participants willing to donate versus create posts are demographically different. Study-created data is valuable to train models that generalize well to genuine data, but realistic effectiveness estimates require genuine data.