Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T13:03:43.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Survey Questions Spread Conspiracy Beliefs?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2023

Scott Clifford Open the ORCID record for Scott Clifford [Opens in a new window]  and
Brian W. Sullivan Open the ORCID record for Brian W. Sullivan [Opens in a new window]
Scott Clifford*
Affiliation:
University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Brian W. Sullivan
Affiliation:
Foreign Service Institute, US Department of State, Arlington, VA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: scliffor@central.uh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conspiracy theories and misinformation have become increasingly prominent in politics, and these beliefs have pernicious effects on political behavior. A prominent line of research suggests that these beliefs are promoted by repeated exposure. Yet, as scholars have rushed to understand these beliefs, they have exposed countless respondents to conspiratorial claims, raising the question of whether researchers are contributing to their spread. We investigate this possibility using a pre-registered within-subjects experiment embedded in a panel survey. The results suggest that exposure to a standard conspiracy question causes a significant increase in the likelihood of endorsing that conspiracy a week later. However, this exposure effect does not occur with a question format that offers an alternative, non-conspiratorial explanation for the target event. Thus, we recommend that researchers reduce the likelihood of spreading conspiracy beliefs by adopting a question format that asks respondents to choose between alternative explanations for an event.

Keywords

Conspiracy beliefsMisinformationIllusory truthPanel conditioning

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Summer 2023 , pp. 231 - 241
Open Practices
Open data Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

This article was accepted for publication under the previous editorial team led by Vin Arceneaux.

References

Bierwiaczonek, Kinga, Kunst, Jonas R., and Pich, Olivia. 2020. Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories Reduces Social Distancing over Time. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 12(4): 1270–1285.Google ScholarPubMed
Brady, William J, Crockett, Molly J., and Van Bavel, Jay J.. 2020. The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The Role of Motivation, Attention, and Design in the Spread of Moralized Content Online. Perspectives on Psychological Science 15(4): 978–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brashier, Nadia M., Eliseev, Emmaline Drew, and Marsh, Elizabeth J.. 2020. An Initial Accuracy Focus Prevents Illusory Truth. Cognition 194: 104054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calvillo, Dustin P., and Smelter, Thomas J.. 2020. An Initial Accuracy Focus Reduces the Effect of Prior Exposure on Perceived Accuracy of News Headlines. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 5(1): 1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Clifford, Scott, and Sullivan, Brian. 2022. Replication Data for: ‘Do Survey Questions Spread Conspiracy Beliefs?’ Harvard Dataverse, DOI: 10.7910/DVN/GCKQYW.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Scott, Kim, Yongkwang, and Sullivan, Brian. 2020. An Improved Question Format for Measuring Conspiracy Beliefs. Public Opinion Quarterly 83(4): 690–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, Marcel, Toepoel, Vera, and van Soest, Arthur. 2011. Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys. Sociological Methods & Research 40(1): 32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiFonzo, Nicholas, Beckstead, Jason W., Stupak, Noah, and Walders, Kate. 2016. Validity Judgments of Rumors Heard Multiple Times: The Shape of the Truth Effect. Social Influence 11(1): 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Karen M., Joseph E. Uscinski, Robbie M. Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chee Siang Ang, Farzin Deravi 2019. Understanding Conspiracy Theories. Political Psychology 40(S1): 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Katherine Levine, and Glick, David M.. 2014. Do I Think BLS Data Are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories. Political Behavior 37(3): 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enders, Adam M., Uscinski, Joseph E., Seelig, Michelle I., Klofstad, Casey A., Wuchty, Stefan, Funchion, John R., Murthi, Manohar N., Premaratne, Kamal, and Stoler, Justin. 2021. The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation. Political Behavior 2021: 1–24.Google Scholar
Greenspan, Rachel Leigh, and Loftus, Elizabeth F.. 2022. What Happens after Debriefing? The Effectiveness and Benefits of Postexperimental Debriefing. Memory & Cognition 50: 696–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hassan, Aumyo, and Barber, Sarah J.. 2021. The Effects of Repetition Frequency on the Illusory Truth Effect. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 6(38): 1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Henderson, Emma L., Simons, Daniel J., and Barr, Dale J.. 2021. The Trajectory of Truth: A Longitudinal Study of the Illusory Truth Effect. Journal of Cognition 4(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, Seth J., and Roberts, Margaret E.. 2023. Acquiescence Bias Inflates Estimates of Conspiratorial Beliefs and Political Misperceptions. Political Analysis, Forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imhoff, Roland, Dieterle, Lea, and Lamberty, Pia. 2020. Resolving the Puzzle of Conspiracy Worldview and Political Activism: Belief in Secret Plots Decreases Normative but Increases Nonnormative Political Engagement. Social Psychological and Personality Science 12(1):71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalbert, Madeline, Newman, Eryn, and Schwarz, Norbert. 2020. Only Half of What I’ll Tell You Is True: Expecting to Encounter Falsehoods Reduces Illusory Truth. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 9(4): 602–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolley, Daniel, and Douglas, Karen M.. 2014. The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions. ed. Ralph Tripp. PLoS ONE 9(2): e89177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolley, Daniel, Meleady, Rose, and Douglas, Karen M.. 2019. Exposure to Intergroup Conspiracy Theories Promotes Prejudice Which Spreads across Groups. British Journal of Psychology 111(1): 17–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruse, Yelena, Callegaro, Mario, Dennis, J. Michael, DiSogra, Charles, Subias, Stefan, Lawrence, Michael, and Tompson, Trevor. 2010. Panel Conditioning and Attrition in the AP-Yahoo! News Election Panel Study. In Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conferences of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, 5742–56.Google Scholar
Marchlewska, Marta, Cichocka, Aleksandra, and Kossowska, Małgorzata. 2018. Addicted to Answers: Need for Cognitive Closure and the Endorsement of Conspiracy Beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology 48(2): 109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric, and Wood, Thomas J.. 2014a. Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 952–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric, and Wood, Thomas. 2014b. Medical Conspiracy Theories and Health Behaviors in the United States. JAMA Internal Medicine 174(5): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennycook, Gordon, Cannon, Tyrone D., and Rand, David G.. 2018. Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147: 1865–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reber, Rolf, and Schwarz, Norbert. 1999. Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth. Consciousness and Cognition 8(3): 338–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smallpage, Steven M., Enders, Adam M., and Uscinski, Joseph E.. 2017. The Partisan Contours of Conspiracy Theory Beliefs. Research & Politics 4(4): 205316801774655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph E., Klofstad, Casey, and Atkinson, Matthew D.. 2016. What Drives Conspiratorial Beliefs? The Role of Informational Cues and Predispositions. Political Research Quarterly 69(1): 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Prooijen, Jan Willem, Ligthart, Joline, Rosema, Sabine, and Xu, Yang. 2021. The Entertainment Value of Conspiracy Theories. British Journal of Psychology 113(1): 25–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, and Acker, Michele. 2015. The Influence of Control on Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Conceptual and Applied Extensions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 29: 753–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Clifford and Sullivan Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GCKQYW
Link
Supplementary material: File

Clifford and Sullivan supplementary material

Clifford and Sullivan supplementary material

Download Clifford and Sullivan supplementary material(File)
File 82 KB