IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jexpos/v3y2016i02p109-123_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Classified or Coverup? The Effect of Redactions on Conspiracy Theory Beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Nyhan, Brendan
  • Dickinson, Franklin
  • Dudding, Sasha
  • Dylgjeri, Enxhi
  • Neiley, Eric
  • Pullerits, Christopher
  • Seog, Minae
  • Simpson, Andy
  • Szilagyi, Heather
  • Walmsley, Colin

Abstract

Conspiracy theories are prevalent among the public. Governments frequently release official documents attempting to explain events that inspire these beliefs. However, these documents are often heavily redacted, a practice that lay epistemic theory suggests might be interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy. To investigate this possibility, we tested the effect of redactions on beliefs in a well-known conspiracy theory. Results from two preregistered experiments indicate that conspiracy beliefs were higher when people were exposed to seemingly redacted documents compared to when they were exposed to unredacted documents that were otherwise identical. In addition, unredacted documents consistently lowered conspiracy beliefs relative to controls while redacted documents had reduced or null effects, suggesting that lay epistemic interpretations of the redactions undermined the effect of information in the documents. Our findings, which do not vary by conspiracy predispositions, suggest policymakers should be more transparent when releasing documents to refute misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nyhan, Brendan & Dickinson, Franklin & Dudding, Sasha & Dylgjeri, Enxhi & Neiley, Eric & Pullerits, Christopher & Seog, Minae & Simpson, Andy & Szilagyi, Heather & Walmsley, Colin, 2016. "Classified or Coverup? The Effect of Redactions on Conspiracy Theory Beliefs," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 109-123, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jexpos:v:3:y:2016:i:02:p:109-123_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2052263015000214/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:jexpos:v:3:y:2016:i:02:p:109-123_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/xps .

    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.