Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Political Behavior
Published in: Political Behavior 3/2015

01-09-2015 | Original Paper

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

Authors: Katherine Levine Einstein, David M. Glick

Published in: Political Behavior | Issue 3/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

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.
previous article Erratum to: Does Politics Influence Hiring? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment
next article Campaigns and the Mitigation of Framing Effects on Voting Behavior: A Natural and Field Experiment

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
For example, we dropped “September” from the headline and article and replaced “July” and “August” with “the two previous months.”
 
2
Our participants were paid 75 cents, which is consistent with standard rates on MTurk. We restricted participation to those in American who had at least a 95 % approval rate on at least 50 HITs—which are surveys or tasks in mTurk’s lingo—and we dropped respondents from the second experiment who participated in the first by using their random MTurk ID numbers.
 
3
Because the article was unrelated to the BLS data, we included the following transitional preface to questions in this condition: “Speaking of numerical data, the government provides a lot of economic data of its own. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports monthly economic data”.
 
4
The liberal and young nature of MTurk demographics suggest some caution in extrapolating these results to the elderly and extremely conservative segments of the American population. However, if anything, we would expect the elderly and conservative to be even more sharply affected by our conspiracy exposure than the young and liberal; so, our results likely downplay the effect of conspiracy exposure as a consequence of our sample’s demographics. Moreover, while our sample skews young and liberal, we do have a sizable number of elderly and conservative respondents (indeed, we control for both age and partisanship in our models).
 
5
The full models, including results for all of the institutions including those for which we do not expect confidence effects can be found in the Supplementary material, Table A4. All results remain substantively the same when we calculate a series of individual OLS estimates; the seemingly unrelated regression equations simply provide more efficient estimates.
 
6
Ideally one could also investigate the independent effect of the rebuttal, but doing so may not have much substantive meaning and/or confuse participants since a rebuttal without the conspiracy claim it relates to does not make much sense. Rebuttals on their own only make sense when they refer to well known conspiracy claims. In such an instance, though, the rebuttal is likely serving the role of the conspiracy exposure by reminding people of the claim as well.
 
Literature
Aaronovitch, D., & Langton, J. (2010). Voodoo histories: The role of the conspiracy theory in shaping modern history. New York: Wiley.
Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and american democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
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.CrossRef
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1997). Going negative. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Banas, J. A., & Miller, G. (2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and metainoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 39(2), 184–207.CrossRef
Barker, D. C., & Hansen, S. B. (2005). All things considered: Systematic cognitive processing and electoral decisionmaking. Journal of Politics, 67(2), 319–344.CrossRef
Bartels, L. M. (2005). Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics, 3(01), 15–31.CrossRef
Berinsky, A.J. (2013). Rumors, truths, and reality: A study of political misinformation. Unpublished Working Paper (V3.1).
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.CrossRef
Blair, G., & Imai, K. (2012). Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis, 20(1), 47–77.CrossRef
Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 279.CrossRef
Bullock, J.G. (2007). Experiments on Partisanship and Public Opinion: Party Cues, False Beliefs, and Bayesian Updating. Stanford University Dissertation.
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.
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.CrossRef
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., & Stokes, Donald E. (1980). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Center, Pew Research. (2013). January Survey, Trust in Government.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(04), 637–655.CrossRef
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.
Coady, D. (2006). Conspiracy theories: The philosophical debate. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
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.CrossRef
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: harcourt brace jovanovich college publishers.
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.CrossRef
Edwards, Kari, & Smith, Edward E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
Hardin, R. (1999). Democracy and trust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Do we want trust in government? (pp. 22–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96, 109–126.CrossRef
Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Kuklinski, J. H., Cobb, M. D., & Gilens, M. (1997). Racial attitudes and the new south. Journal of Politics, 59, 323–349.CrossRef
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.
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475–507.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2005). Regression models for categorical outcomes using stata (2nd ed.). College Station: Stata Press.
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.CrossRef
McCarty, N. M., Keith, T., & Knoedler, J. T. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McClosky, H., & Chong, D. (1985). Similarities and differences between left-wing and right-wing radicals. British Journal of Political Science, 15, 329–363.
Mulligan, K., & Habel, P. (2013). The implications of fictional media for political beliefs. American Politics Research, 41(1), 122–146.CrossRef
Nyhan, B. (2012a). Enabling the jobs report conspiracy theory the consequences of careless coverage of friday’s unemployment numbers. Columbia Journalism Review.
Nyhan, B. (2012b). Political knowledge does not guard against belief in conspiracy theories. You Gov: Model Politics.
Nyhan, B. (2013). Boosting the Sandy Hook Truther Myth: The dangers of covering fringe misperceptions. Columbia Journalism Review.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.CrossRef
NYTimes. (2012). Editorial: Conspiracy world. New York: The New York Times.
Presser, S., & Stinson, L. (1998). Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance. American Sociological Review, 63, 137–145.CrossRef
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Do I Think BLS Data are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories
Authors
Katherine Levine Einstein
David M. Glick
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Political Behavior / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Political Behavior 3/2015 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Campaigns and the Mitigation of Framing Effects on Voting Behavior: A Natural and Field Experiment

Original Paper

There Can Be Only One (Woman on the Ticket): Gender in Candidate Nominations

Original Paper

The Conditional Effect of Network Diversity and Values on Tolerance

Original Paper

From Black and White to Left and Right: Race, Perceptions of Candidates’ Ideologies, and Voting Behavior in U.S. House Elections

Erratum

Erratum to: Does Politics Influence Hiring? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment

Original Paper

Citizen Information, Electoral Incentives, and Provision of Counter-Terrorism: An Experimental Approach