Do conspiracy beliefs fuel support for reactionary social movements? Effects of misbeliefs on actions to oppose lockdown and to “stop the steal”

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Emma F. Thomas, Lucy Bird, Alexander O'Donnell, Danny Osborne, Eliana Buonaiuto, Lisette Yip, Morgana Lizzio-Wilson, Michael Wenzel, Linda Skitka
{"title":"Do conspiracy beliefs fuel support for reactionary social movements? Effects of misbeliefs on actions to oppose lockdown and to “stop the steal”","authors":"Emma F. Thomas,&nbsp;Lucy Bird,&nbsp;Alexander O'Donnell,&nbsp;Danny Osborne,&nbsp;Eliana Buonaiuto,&nbsp;Lisette Yip,&nbsp;Morgana Lizzio-Wilson,&nbsp;Michael Wenzel,&nbsp;Linda Skitka","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Pundits have speculated that the spread of conspiracies and misinformation (termed “misbeliefs”) is leading to a resurgence of right-wing, reactionary movements. However, the current empirical picture regarding the relationship between misbeliefs and collective action is mixed. We help clarify these associations by using two waves of data collected during the COVID-19 Pandemic (in Australia, <i>N</i> = 519, and the United States, <i>N</i> = 510) and democratic elections (in New Zealand <i>N</i> = 603, and the United States <i>N</i> = 609) to examine the effects of misbeliefs on support for reactionary movements (e.g., anti-lockdown protests, Study 1; anti-election protests, Study 2). Results reveal that within-person changes in misbeliefs correlate positively with support for reactionary collective action both directly (Studies 1–2) and indirectly by shaping the legitimacy of the authority (Study 1b). The relationship between misbelief and legitimacy is, however, conditioned by the stance of the authority in question: the association is positive when authorities endorse misbeliefs (Study 1a) and negative when they do not (Study 1b). Thus, the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and action hinges upon the alignment of the content of the conspiracy and the goals of the collective action.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"63 3","pages":"1297-1317"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12727","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12727","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pundits have speculated that the spread of conspiracies and misinformation (termed “misbeliefs”) is leading to a resurgence of right-wing, reactionary movements. However, the current empirical picture regarding the relationship between misbeliefs and collective action is mixed. We help clarify these associations by using two waves of data collected during the COVID-19 Pandemic (in Australia, N = 519, and the United States, N = 510) and democratic elections (in New Zealand N = 603, and the United States N = 609) to examine the effects of misbeliefs on support for reactionary movements (e.g., anti-lockdown protests, Study 1; anti-election protests, Study 2). Results reveal that within-person changes in misbeliefs correlate positively with support for reactionary collective action both directly (Studies 1–2) and indirectly by shaping the legitimacy of the authority (Study 1b). The relationship between misbelief and legitimacy is, however, conditioned by the stance of the authority in question: the association is positive when authorities endorse misbeliefs (Study 1a) and negative when they do not (Study 1b). Thus, the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and action hinges upon the alignment of the content of the conspiracy and the goals of the collective action.

Abstract Image

阴谋论信念会助长对反动社会运动的支持吗?错误信念对反对封锁和 "阻止偷窃 "行动的影响。
有学者猜测,阴谋和错误信息(被称为 "错误信念")的传播正在导致右翼反动运动的重新抬头。然而,目前关于误信与集体行动之间关系的实证情况喜忧参半。我们利用在 COVID-19 大流行(澳大利亚,N = 519;美国,N = 510)和民主选举(新西兰,N = 603;美国,N = 609)期间收集的两波数据,研究了误解对反动运动(如反封锁抗议,研究 1;反选举抗议,研究 2)支持率的影响,从而有助于澄清这些关联。研究结果显示,个人内部误信的变化与反动集体行动的支持度呈正相关,既直接相关(研究1-2),也通过影响权威的合法性而间接相关(研究1b)。然而,误信与合法性之间的关系受到有关当局立场的制约:当当局认可误信时,两者之间的关系为正相关(研究 1a),而当当局不认可误信时,两者之间的关系为负相关(研究 1b)。因此,阴谋信念与行动之间的关系取决于阴谋的内容与集体行动的目标是否一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信