Conspiratorial Beliefs, Public Opinion, and Democratic Citizenship A Proposal to the American National Election Studies Adam Berinsky, MIT, and Eric Oliver, University of Chicago Key words: conspiracy theory, rumor, public opinion, political information Executive Summary This proposal seeks to test 14 survey items in the 2012 ANES regarding a variety of rumors and conspiratorial beliefs. In conjunction with other ANES items, these 14 questions serve the following purposes: •
•
•
To examine the extent of rumors and conspiratorial beliefs in the American public; To determine the demographic and behavioral correlates of rumors and conspiratorial beliefs; To examine how adherence to such rumors and conspiratorial narratives shapes public opinion formation, political participation, and voter behavior. Theoretical Overview Rumors and conspiracy theories have long been a staple of American politics. From the anti‐Masonic party of the 19th century to the current “Tea Party” movement, significant percentages of Americans have organized themselves around the idea that political elites are untrustworthy and represented the interests of secretive, unseen, and nefarious groups. With the rise of the 24‐ hour news cycle and the rapid communication of specialized information via the Internet, however, the potential for the spread of innuendo and misinformation through rumors is perhaps greater than at any time in history. Indeed, widespread adherence to rumors and conspiracy theories can be found on any range of subjects, from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to the spread of AIDS among African Americans to apocalyptic fears among evangelicals. Such views are often caricatured within the mass media and left relatively unexamined in the academy. However, these views are held by a large portion of the American population. Over the last few years, we have collected survey data concerning conspiratorial views. In a 2006 CCES survey, Oliver asked a nationally representative sample their agreement with various conspiratorial beliefs and found that nearly half of Americans endorse some kind of conspiratorial statement (see Table 1). For instance, half of the sample agreed with the notion that “Much of what happens in the world today is decided by a small and secretive group of powerful individuals.” Table 1: Percent of Americans agreeing with conspiratorial beliefs Conspiratorial Belief Statement Percent Agreeing “Strongly” or “Somewhat” Much of what happens in the world today is decided by a small and secretive group of powerful individuals 50
U.S. government officials either planned the attacks of September 11, 2001 or did nothing to stop them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East. 17
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not part of a campaign to fight terrorism, but was driven by oil companies and Jews in the U.S. and Israel. 20
We are currently living in end times as foretold by Biblical prophesy. Source: 2006 CCES
20
Ncases = 815
More strongly to this point are the percentages agreeing with statements about 9/11, the Iraq war, and Biblical prophesy. Seventeen percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “U.S. government officials either planned the attacks of September 11, 2001 or did nothing to stop them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.” Twenty percent of respondents agreed with the notion that “The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not part of a campaign to fight terrorism, but was driven by oil companies and Jews in the U.S. and Israel” and another 20 percent agreed with the idea that “We are currently living in end times as foretold by Biblical prophesy.” What is striking about these last two figures are not only their high percentages, but the relatively low level of overlap between them. Only 3 percent of the respondents who agree with the idea that the Iraq war was driven by “oil companies and Jews” also agree with the idea that current events are foretold in biblical prophesy. Similar findings have been found in other research. A poll conducted by the Pew Center in August 2009 found that 30 percent of the public thought the “death panel” rumor surrounding health care reform was true, with another 20 percent unsure of the veracity of the statement. Even after the passage of the act, the death panel rumors continue to persist. In a national internet sample in July 2010, Berinsky found that 33 percent of the public thought the “death panel” rumor was true, with another 22 percent unsure. The same poll found that 27 percent of the public thought that Obama was not native‐born, with another 19 percent unsure. In the wake of Obama’s decision to release his birth certificate in April 2011, there seemed to be a drop in the percentage of people who believed he was not a citizen, but this change may be short‐lived. Given the public’s reaction to previous information on this question, as discussed below, this decision is surely not the last word on the matter. The fact that such beliefs are endorsed by a large portion of the population constitutes a major challenge for many well‐established models of political attitudes and behavior. Consider, for example, John Zaller’s canonical The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (1992). Its powerful yet parsimonious “Receive‐Accept‐Sample” (RAS) model has become the central explanation within political science for how ordinary citizens come to their political views. Zaller’s RAS model prioritizes elite discourse as the driving engine of public opinion. Implicit in this model, however, is an assumption of a relatively consistent level of elite trust among the mass public; variation in opinion arises from the political values and awareness of the mass public relative to elite signals. But what Zaller’s book, and subsequent research, never examined was whether alternative source of variation might occur in relation to individuals’ political marginalization, cognitive particularities, credulity, and mistrust of political elites. The widespread acceptance of rumors and conspiratorial views poses several important questions for existing accounts of public opinion formation and democratic accountability. If citizens believe nefarious sources are behind government and the media, that current events are the consequence of supernatural power, or any other counter‐cultural conceptions that run contrary to dominant political paradigms, it is not self‐evident that they will simply respond to elite messages according to their ideological priors. For instance, a conservative “birther” who thinks the mainstream media is hiding Barack Obama’s non‐citizenship is unlikely to respond to information in the press as a conservative who doesn’t hold conspiratorial views; the former is likely to disregard any mainstream political discourse while the latter is likely to “receive” a much wider range of information sources. The fundamental mistrust of elites or a deep conviction that unseen forces control world events are likely to create a distinctive source of variation in public opinion that is distinct from either awareness or ideology. Similar questions would also arise for citizen participation and voting behavior, particularly relative to ideology, partisanship, and the party in power. Perhaps left‐wing rumors and conspiracies are more likely to hold weight during Republican administration while right‐wing conspiracies are more common when Democrats hold the presidency. If this is the case, then conspiratorial beliefs may shape how citizens evaluate their leaders. Similarly, does holding a conspiracy belief diminish or enhance political participation? If conspiratorial theorists view all political elites as pawns of some nefarious power, then what kinds of political options do they see as legitimate? How does their belief in conspiracy influence the way they consume and process political information? Do they support third‐party or fringe candidates like Lyndon LaRouche, or do they think it is necessary to violently oppose the political system, such as with Timothy McVeigh? In order to answer such questions, we need to have a better sense of what types of rumors and conspiratorial beliefs the public holds. To take these first steps, we propose ten survey items that gauge public agreement with a variety of conspiracy beliefs from across the political spectrum (see below). Items 1 through 3 are broad questions meant to capture a general openness to conspiratorial beliefs or supernatural beliefs, independent of political beliefs (although one could easily endorse this without believing any subsequent conspiracy theories). Items 4 through 6 are meant to capture rumors or conspiratorial views that are more common among the political right; items 7 through 9 are rumors more commonly embraced by the left; item 10 is a completely novel rumor that is added to test for response bias and the general credulity of the survey respondent. The first nine items have been pre‐tested by both Berinsky and Oliver in national‐sample surveys and exhibit a wide variance in responses; the tenth item is new and has not been pre‐tested. Below are list of statements that many people think are true. We’d like to get your opinion. For each of the following statements, please say if you agree, strongly agree, disagree, strongly disagree, or neither agree nor disagree with the statement: 1) Much of what happens in the world today is decided by a small and secretive group of powerful individuals. 2) We are currently living in end times as foretold by Biblical prophesy. 3) A spacecraft from another planet crashed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Below are list of statements that many people think are true. We’d like to get your opinion. For each of the following statements, please say if 1) you had heard this statement before, and 2) if you agree, strongly agree, disagree, strongly disagree, or neither agree nor disagree with the statement: 4) Liberal billionaire George Soros is behind a hidden plot to destabilize America, take control of the media, and put the world under the control of a single government. 5) President Barack Obama was not really born in the United States and does not have an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate. 6) The United States government provides illegal immigrants with special benefits, such as houses, cars, or tax breaks. 7) Certain U.S. government officials secretly orchestrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East. 8) Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election through voter fraud in Ohio 9) The FBI and the CIA make sure that there is a steady supply of guns and drugs in the inner city. 10) The U.S. government is mandating the switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs because fluorescent lights make people more obedient and easier to control. The second part of this module will include a short battery designed to gauge the general credulity of the American public, or their willingness to believe any type of claim. The inclusion of these items will provide a baseline by which to evaluate the rumors listed above. They will be comprised of four items in the following scale: Below are list of statements that many people think are true. We’d like to get your opinion. For each of the following statements, please say if 1) you had heard this statement before, and 2) if you agree, strongly agree, disagree, strongly disagree, or neither agree nor disagree with the statement: 11) Talking or singing to houseplants will help them grow and be healthy. 12) Taking lots of Vitamin C will reduce the chances that a person will catch a cold. 13) Some people have Extra‐Sensory Perception (ESP) and can see events before they occur. 14) Certain numbers like 7 and 13 have special significance and can cause good or bad things to happen. Although these items have not been pretested, it is our contention that they might have important significance in themselves. If a certain portion of the citizenry have high levels of credulity, then they might be more susceptible to a range of political messages and to manipulative or misleading campaign messages. Constructing a baseline measure of credulity will provide researchers with a potentially valuable tool in examining a host of other influences on contemporary public opinion.