Trust Nobody: How Conspiracy Theories Can Distort Political Accountability

Invernizzi, Giovanna Maria; Mohamed, Ahmed Ezzeldin

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3507190

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to a massive failure of these institutions, these accounts emphasize conspiracy theories—the idea that apparent reality is a sham, a scheme designed to fool the “people” into obedience. Experimental work shows that political conspiracy theories undermine the reliability of mainstream accounts of political events (Invernizzi & Mohamed, 2019; Kim & Cao, 2016). Promoting identity politics and real or imagined threats mobilizes voters with more authoritarian tendencies (Hetherington & Weiler, 2009) and saps the momentum for liberal change.…”

Section: Illiberal Regimes and Anti-mainstream Propaganda In Democraciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign Anti-Mainstream Propaganda and Democratic Publics

Mader

Marinov

Schoen

2022

Comparative Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illiberal regimes use overt and covert political communication to influence public opinion in democracies. We present an argument about how such propaganda impacts targeted publics. We posit that effectiveness depends on whether the source of the message is revealed, on the nature of the issue, and on individual characteristics of the recipients. We test these propositions in Germany, in the context of Kremlin messaging, using eight survey experiments administered to a large sample of German voters ( n = 2, 303). Citizens who mistrust the government, believe in conspiracy theories, or are generally disconnected from politics are vulnerable to propaganda warfare that involves anti-mainstream messaging, while the rest of the populace is not. At the same time, providing a pro-Western, mainstream viewpoint and outing the Russian source are not generally effective countermeasures. We discuss the implications of illiberal regime communication for information wars between states and for the internal workings of democratic politics.*

show abstract

Section: Illiberal Regimes and Anti-mainstream Propaganda In Democraciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign Anti-Mainstream Propaganda and Democratic Publics

Mader

Marinov

Schoen

2022

Comparative Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Exposure to conspiracy theories has powerful negative effects on trust in government services and institutions (Einstein and Glick, 2015;Invernizzi and Mohamed, 2019). A belief in conspiracy theories erodes trust in epistemic authorities (Imhoff et al, 2018) and limits the believer's willingness to engage in behaviours that have a positive impact on the community, such as being vaccinated (Jolley and Douglas, 2014).…”

Section: Conspiracy Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the COVID-19 pandemic: predictors of trust in institutions in Romania

Bârgăoanu

Corbu

Buturoiu

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper discusses the predictors of trust in the institutions and people involved in crisis management at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania. Trust in institutions might be a key factor in the way countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic deal with the crisis as people might be more willing to accept the restrictions and rules imposed if they trust the key institutions and people involved in managing the pandemic. The paper provides recommendations for key stakeholders to increase trust in people and institutions in times of crisis.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw evidence from a national online panel survey (N = 1,160) to investigate the main predictors of trust in this context.FindingsThe main results indicate that trust in institutions is positively correlated with news consumption and personal discussions about the pandemic, perceived incidence of COVID-19 fake news, belief in conspiracy theories and uncertainty about the future of the country.Originality/valueTo the best of the knowledge, this study is one of the few papers investigating the predictors of trust in the institutions and people involved in managing the current pandemic in a country in the Central and Eastern European region.

show abstract

“…The true prevalence (Freeman et al, 2020a,b;Sutton and Douglas, 2020) and behavioral effects (Earnshaw et al, 2020) of such beliefs are difficult to establish. Yet given the potential influence of conspiracy theories and misinformation on the course of a public health crisis, and on trust and participation in the political process more generally (Invernizzi and Mohamed, 2019), it is important to understand not just who endorses and who rejects such claims, but how people metacognitively categorize the claims. Are conspiracy theories and misinformation seen as more fact-like, more opinion-like, or a mixture of the two, as other ideological claims appear to be (Heiphetz et al, 2013(Heiphetz et al, , 2014(Heiphetz et al, , 2017?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive Labeling of Contentious Claims: Facts, Opinions, and Conspiracy Theories

Brotherton

Son

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Congenial information is often judged to be more valid than uncongenial (but otherwise equivalent) information. The present research explores a related possibility concerning the process by which people label a claim as fundamentally factual (open to proof or disproof) or opinion (a matter of personal preference not amenable to falsification). Rather than merely being more skeptical of uncongenial claims, uncongenial claims may be metacognitively categorized as more opinion than factual, while congenial claims may be more likely to be categorized as factual. The two studies reported here attempt to trace a preliminary outline of how claims are categorized as fact, opinion, or some mix of the two in the context of mundane claims, contentious political issues, and conspiracy theories. The findings suggest that claims are more likely to be labeled factual (and, to a lesser extent, are less likely to be labeled opinion) to the extent that one subjectively agrees with the content of the claim. Conspiracy theories appear to occupy a middle-ground between fact and opinion. This metacognitive approach may help shed light on popular debate about conspiracy theories, as well as seemingly intractable political disagreements more generally, which may reflect fundamental differences in the perceived epistemic foundations of claims rather than simple disagreement over the facts of the matter. Given limitations of the stimuli and participant samples, however, it remains to be seen how generalizable these findings are.

show abstract

Trust Nobody: How Conspiracy Theories Can Distort Political Accountability

Cited by 8 publications

References 29 publications

Foreign Anti-Mainstream Propaganda and Democratic Publics

Foreign Anti-Mainstream Propaganda and Democratic Publics

Managing the COVID-19 pandemic: predictors of trust in institutions in Romania

Metacognitive Labeling of Contentious Claims: Facts, Opinions, and Conspiracy Theories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About