Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 679–701 | Cite as

Do I Think BLS Data are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories

  • Katherine Levine EinsteinEmail author
  • David M. Glick
Original Paper

Abstract

While the willingness of people to believe unfounded and conspiratorial explanations of events is fascinating and troubling, few have addressed the broader impacts of the dissemination of conspiracy claims. We use survey experiments to assess whether realistic exposure to a conspiracy claim affects conspiracy beliefs and trust in government. These experiments yield interesting and potentially surprising results. We discover that respondents who are asked whether they believe in a conspiracy claim after reading a specific allegation actually report lower beliefs than those not exposed to the specific claim. Turning to trust in government, we find that exposure to a conspiracy claim has a potent negative effect on trust in government services and institutions including those unconnected to the allegations. Moreover, and consistent with our belief experiment, we find that first asking whether people believe in the conspiracy mitigates the negative trust effects. Combining these findings suggests that conspiracy exposure increases conspiracy beliefs and reduces trust, but that asking about beliefs prompts additional thinking about the claims which softens and/or reverses the exposure’s effect on beliefs and trust.

Keywords

Conspiracy theories Trust in government Experiments Misinformation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

They would like to thank Adam Berinsky, Jennifer Hochschild, Doug Kriner, Brendan Nyhan, Dustin Tingley, seminar participants at Dartmouth College, and five anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Supplementary material

11109_2014_9287_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 2451 KB)

References

  1. Aaronovitch, D., & Langton, J. (2010). Voodoo histories: The role of the conspiracy theory in shaping modern history. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and american democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allport, F. H., & Lepkin, M. (1945). Wartime rumors of waste and special privilege: Why some people believe them. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 40(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1997). Going negative. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  5. Banas, J. A., & Miller, G. (2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and metainoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 39(2), 184–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker, D. C., & Hansen, S. B. (2005). All things considered: Systematic cognitive processing and electoral decisionmaking. Journal of Politics, 67(2), 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. M. (2005). Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics, 3(01), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berinsky, A.J. (2013). Rumors, truths, and reality: A study of political misinformation. Unpublished Working Paper (V3.1).Google Scholar
  9. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blair, G., & Imai, K. (2012). Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis, 20(1), 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bullock, J.G. (2007). Experiments on Partisanship and Public Opinion: Party Cues, False Beliefs, and Bayesian Updating. Stanford University Dissertation.Google Scholar
  13. Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A.S., Hill, S.J., & Huber, G.A. (2013). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper.Google Scholar
  14. Bullock, Will, Imai, Kosuke, & Shapiro, Jacob N. (2011). Statistical analysis of endorsement experiments: Measuring support for militant groups in Pakistan. Political Analysis, 19(4), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., & Stokes, Donald E. (1980). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Center, Pew Research. (2013). January Survey, Trust in Government.Google Scholar
  17. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(04), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Coady, D. (2006). Conspiracy theories: The philosophical debate. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Cobb, M. D., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2013). Beliefs don’t always persevere: How political figures are punished when positive information about them is discredited. Political Psychology, 34, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: harcourt brace jovanovich college publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 570–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards, Kari, & Smith, Edward E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellin, A. (2012). GOP Jobs report manipulation claims dismissed. www.ABCnews.com.
  25. Gingerich, D. W. (2010). Understanding off-the-books politics: Conducting inference on the determinants of sensitive behavior with randomized response surveys. Political Analysis, 18(3), 349–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hardin, R. (1999). Democracy and trust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Do we want trust in government? (pp. 22–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2013). The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. The British Journal of Psychology, 105, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kriner, D. L., & Howell, W. G. (2012). Congressional leadership of war opinion? Backlash effects and the polarization of public support for war. In L. C. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (10th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kuklinski, J. H., Cobb, M. D., & Gilens, M. (1997). Racial attitudes and the new south. Journal of Politics, 59, 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2003). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.Google Scholar
  35. Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing therefore (Climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 5, 622–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewandowsky, S., Werner, G. K., & Krueger, J. I. (2013). Misinformation, disinformation, and violent conflict: From Iraq and the “war on terror” to future threats to peace. American Psychologist, 68(7), 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2005). Regression models for categorical outcomes using stata (2nd ed.). College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCarty, N. M., Keith, T., & Knoedler, J. T. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. McClosky, H., & Chong, D. (1985). Similarities and differences between left-wing and right-wing radicals. British Journal of Political Science, 15, 329–363.Google Scholar
  43. Mulligan, K., & Habel, P. (2013). The implications of fictional media for political beliefs. American Politics Research, 41(1), 122–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nyhan, B. (2012a). Enabling the jobs report conspiracy theory the consequences of careless coverage of friday’s unemployment numbers. Columbia Journalism Review.Google Scholar
  45. Nyhan, B. (2012b). Political knowledge does not guard against belief in conspiracy theories. You Gov: Model Politics.Google Scholar
  46. Nyhan, B. (2013). Boosting the Sandy Hook Truther Myth: The dangers of covering fringe misperceptions. Columbia Journalism Review.Google Scholar
  47. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. NYTimes. (2012). Editorial: Conspiracy world. New York: The New York Times.Google Scholar
  49. Presser, S., & Stinson, L. (1998). Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance. American Sociological Review, 63, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Rahn, W. M. (2000). Affect as information: The role of public mood in political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popki (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 130–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005). How warnings about false claims become recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 713–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tesler, M. (2012). The spillover of Racialization into health care: How President Obama polarized public opinion by racial attitudes and race. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 690–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tesler, M., & Sears, D. O. (2010). Obama’s race: The 2008 election and the dream of a post-racial America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C., & Atkinson, M. (2014). Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, Washington DC, August 29, 2014.Google Scholar
  56. Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations