IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v10y2022i4p157-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conspiracy Theory Beliefs and Political Trust: The Moderating Role of Political Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Bernd Schlipphak

    (Department of Political Science, University of Münster, Germany)

  • Mujtaba Isani

    (German Center for Integration and Migration Research (DeZIM), Germany)

  • Mitja D. Back

    (Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Germany)

Abstract

A plentitude of research has analyzed citizens’ belief in conspiracy theories and its individual‐level correlates. Yet, the effects of (political) context factors on the causes and effects of individual belief in conspiracy theories are still neglected. However, such context should be especially relevant when it comes to the impact of one’s belief in conspiracy theories on one’s political preference. In this article, we argue that the communication of governmental actors exerts a moderating influence on the link leading from a belief in conspiracy theories to political attitudes. In a nutshell, the belief in conspiracy theories should make citizens less likely to distrust their government—and the political system in general—in contexts where these theories are shared or at least publicly represented by governmental actors. Using two original data sets with data from Germany, Poland, and Jordan (Study 1) and data from Germany, Poland, Sweden, and France (Study 2), we test our argument based on an overall sample of about 10,000 cases. Our results indicate that higher degrees of generic conspiracy theories beliefs are associated with higher levels of political distrust across countries. Yet, confirming our argument, such an effect takes place less strongly in those countries in which governmental actors use conspiracy theories as a political communication strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernd Schlipphak & Mujtaba Isani & Mitja D. Back, 2022. "Conspiracy Theory Beliefs and Political Trust: The Moderating Role of Political Communication," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 157-167.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:157-167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/5755
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Eric Oliver & Thomas J. Wood, 2014. "Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 952-966, October.
    2. Huang, Haifeng, 2017. "A War of (Mis)Information: The Political Effects of Rumors and Rumor Rebuttals in an Authoritarian Country," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 283-311, April.
    3. Joanne M. Miller & Kyle L. Saunders & Christina E. Farhart, 2016. "Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(4), pages 824-844, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Lu, Peng, 2019. "Heterogeneity, judgment, and social trust of agents in rumor spreading," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 350(C), pages 447-461.
    4. Roland Imhoff & Felix Zimmer & Olivier Klein & João H. C. António & Maria Babinska & Adrian Bangerter & Michal Bilewicz & Nebojša Blanuša & Kosta Bovan & Rumena Bužarovska & Aleksandra Cichocka & Sylv, 2022. "Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 392-403, March.
    5. Callaghan, Timothy & Motta, Matthew & Sylvester, Steven & Lunz Trujillo, Kristin & Blackburn, Christine Crudo, 2019. "Parent psychology and the decision to delay childhood vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Motta, Matthew & Callaghan, Timothy & Sylvester, Steven, 2018. "Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 274-281.
    7. Huo, Liang’an & Ma, Chenyang, 2017. "The interaction evolution model of mass incidents with delay in a social network," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 484(C), pages 440-452.
    8. Ethan Struby & Christina Farhart, 2024. "Inflation Expectations and Political Polarization: Evidence from the Cooperative Election Study," Working Papers 2024-01, Carleton College, Department of Economics.
    9. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.
    10. Motta, Matt & Benegal, Salil D, 2022. "How Pandemic-Related Changes in Global Attitudes Toward the Scientific Community Shape “Post-Pandemic” Environmental Opinion," SocArXiv v9egn, Center for Open Science.
    11. Lu, Peng & Deng, Liping & Liao, Hongbing, 2019. "Conditional effects of individual judgment heterogeneity in information dissemination," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 523(C), pages 335-344.
    12. Adrian Kwek & Luke Peh & Josef Tan & Jin Xing Lee, 2023. "Distractions, analytical thinking and falling for fake news: A survey of psychological factors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Mohammad Atari & Reza Afhami & Viren Swami, 2019. "Psychometric assessments of Persian translations of three measures of conspiracist beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "The Paradox of Conspiracy Theory: The Positive Impact of Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories on Preventive Actions and Vaccination Intentions during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-27, November.
    15. Alexander Yendell & David Herbert, 2022. "Religion, Conspiracy Thinking, and the Rejection of Democracy: Evidence From the UK," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 229-242.
    16. Edson C. Tandoc Jr. & Ryan J. Thomas & Lauren Bishop, 2021. "What Is (Fake) News? Analyzing News Values (and More) in Fake Stories," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 110-119.
    17. Jessica Dawson, 2019. "Shall not be infringed: how the NRA used religious language to transform the meaning of the Second Amendment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    18. repec:zbw:bofitp:2015_014 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Libman, Alexander & Vollan, Björn, 2015. "Anti-Western conspiracy thinking and expectations of collusion: Evidence from Russia and China," BOFIT Discussion Papers 14/2015, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    20. Jyoti Prakash Singh & Abhinav Kumar & Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2022. "Attention-Based LSTM Network for Rumor Veracity Estimation of Tweets," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 459-474, April.
    21. Greg Chih-Hsin Sheen & Hans H. Tung & Chien-Huei Wu & Wen-Chin Wu, 2023. "WHO approves? Relative trust, the WHO, and China’s COVID-19 vaccines," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 499-521, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:157-167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.