Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLyons, B
dc.contributor.authorMerola, V
dc.contributor.authorReifler, J
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-18T12:09:14Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-11
dc.description.abstractWhile conspiracy ideation has attracted overdue attention from social scientists in recent years, little work focuses on how different pro-conspiracy messages affect the take-up of conspiracy beliefs. In this study, we compare the effect of explicit and implicit conspiracy cues on the adoption of conspiracy beliefs. We also examine whether corrective information can undo conspiracy cues, and whether there are differences in the effectiveness of corrective information based on whether a respondent received an explicit or implicit conspiracy cue. We examine these questions using a real-world but low-salience conspiracy theory concerning Zika, GM mosquitoes, and vaccines. Using a preregistered experiment (N = 1018: https://osf.io/hj2pw/), we find that both explicit and implicit conspiracy cues increase conspiracy beliefs, but in both cases corrections are generally effective. We also find reception of an explicit conspiracy cue and its correction is conditional on feelings toward the media and pharmaceutical companies. Finally, we find that examining open-ended conspiracy belief items reveals similar patterns, but with a few key differences. These findings have implications for how news media cover controversial public health issues going forward.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Research Councilen_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 11 October 2018en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/10410236.2018.1530526
dc.identifier.grantnumber682758en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/38018
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis (Routledge)en_GB
dc.rights© 2018 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.en_GB
dc.titleNot Just Asking Questions: Effects of Implicit and Explicit Conspiracy Information About Vaccines and Genetic Modificationen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-07-18T12:09:14Z
dc.identifier.issn1041-0236
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis (Routledge) via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalHealth Communicationen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-10-11
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-10-11
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-07-18T12:05:08Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2019-07-18T12:09:17Z
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2018 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2018 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.