At #APSA2022, Enders, @JoeUscinski & @klofstad asks: Have conspiracy beliefs increased over time?

Pundits say we live in a "golden age" of conspiracy beliefs. Surveys show that the public agrees: 73% believe that conspiracy theories are "out of control".

But is it true? 1/10
If true, there are reason for concern.

Conspiracy beliefs correlate with a range of problematic behavior including anti-social personality, non-normative behavior (incl violence) & lack of positive health behavior.

But noone has actually tried to test whether it is true. 2/10
The key problem with testing is *data*. We don't have many over-time sources of conspiracy beliefs.

But we have some! 3/10
The analytical strategy is to compare different time points and go back in time as long as possible (including pre-social media as this is often argued to cause presumed rise in conspiracy beliefs). It is also important to have variation in topics, saliences and survey mode. 4/10
The primary data source is a survey from May 2021 of 2021 (yes, 2021) Americans. Compare this survey to any conspiracy belief polls that can be found. The oldest is from 1966 on JFK assisination. But also old data about Lennon, Tupac, MLK, Pearl Harbor etc. 5/10
First test looks at covid conspiracy beliefs over the pandemic, i.e., a short but relevant time interval. They are relatively stable across the pandemic, with tendency to decline. 6/10
Second test looks at support for QAnon from '18 until '21. The trend is also decreasing over time, despite the fact that QAnon is much more widely known today than previously. Deep-state and sex-trafficking beliefs are stable. 7/10
Third test examines the longer time span. Of 37 conspiracy beliefs, only 6 show increase (from 4-10 %-points). 15 show significant decrease (from 3-31 %-point). So, the average development is negative. 8/10
Overall, the data (and there are lots more than covered in this thread) suggest that we do not live in an age of conspiracy beliefs. But there are caveats: Says nothing about elite behavior or exposure to conspiracy theories (even if they are not believed). 9/10
This means that we should not assume that people are getting worse in spotting false information with important implications for, e.g., free-speech. 10/10

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Bang Petersen

Michael Bang Petersen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @M_B_Petersen

Sep 17
At #APSA2022, Tsveta Petrova asks: Do political scandals mobilize populist voters because it gives proof of "corrupt elites"? And what happens if it is the populist elites that are the focus of the scandal? 1/5
The dataset are data on political scandals in Hungary and Poland from 2000 to 2020. This includes scandals related to legality, morality and democratic violations. This is connected to data on electoral support (i.e., vote shares). 2/5
The data shows that populist elites are heavily involved in scandals when they come to power. But having populist in power also increases scandals among the opposition, in part, because the populists use official media to target the opposition. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
Sep 17
Populists in power undermine democratic institutions but are these actions aligned with the preferences of their voters?, asks Tsveta Petrova at #APSA2022 1/5
In general, some prior research suggests that populist supports are loyal to pluralist democracy. Other research suggests that populist supporters do not, in fact, support democracy. 2/5
A third possibility is that populist voters support a particular form of democracy: majoritarian democracy, where decisions reflect the "will of the people". 3/5
Read 5 tweets
Sep 17
At #APSA2022, Natasha Wunsch asks why voters tolerate democratic backsliding, focusing on the Hungarian case. 1/9
The puzzle is why citizens who state they support democracy still support undemocratic leaders? There is a growing literature on partisanship and how group psychology produce acceptance of inparty candidates, even if they are undemocratic. 2/9
But these findings are not entirely reproducible. Instead, it may be that there is heterogeniety among supporters of authoritarian politics. The party essentially builds a large voter coalition and this enables them to stay in power. 3/9
Read 9 tweets
Sep 17
At APSA2022, @ArifMemovic asks why Americans sometimes are willing to excuse political violence? 1/7
The common sense notion is that political violence is prohibited in democracies. But there is political violence and surveys show some (and increasing) support for political violence. But this is controversial & there are a larger methods discussion about the survey evidence 2/7
In the present study, it is asked whether people evaluate acts of political violence depending on the severity of the act and the identity of the perpetrator?

In other words, are all acts judged equally? Are people act- or identity-centered? 3/7
Read 7 tweets
Sep 17
At #APSA2022, @EricGroenendyk asks how perceptions of politics as conflict shape other political attitudes.

While many often see politics as conflict over resources, it may also be conceptualized as joint problem-solving. Does perceptions of this matter? 1/10
This is part of a larger project. In a published paper, it has already been shown that politics-as-conflict activates motivated reasoning. The present results focus on how politics-as-conflict perceptions shape political engagement. 2/10
Prior research suggests that conflict orientations increases engagement in politics. This raises the question of whether participatory democracy is even compatible with delibrative problem-solving democracy? 3/10
Read 10 tweets
Sep 17
At #APSA2022, @Bryan_Gervais asks whether elite political incivility polarizes the electorate?

There are two camps: One says 'yes' and one says 'no'. The latter camp argues that incivility may in fact depolarize.

But: May the effect depend on the conditions of incivility? 1/6
When may in-elite hostility polarize? Perhaps in competitive elections where status threats are clear. Prior research shows that status threats lead to preferences for aggression. But when status threats are not clear, incivility might be rejected by partisans. 2/6
The data comes from four experiments in online surveys. The timing of these surveys differed in their distance to a competitive election. In the surveys, participants are exposed to civil versus incivil political statements from in-party elites. 3/6
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(