IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v5y2019i1d10.1057_s41599-019-0243-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?

Author

Listed:
  • Casey A. Klofstad

    (University of Miami)

  • Joseph E. Uscinski

    (University of Miami)

  • Jennifer M. Connolly

    (University of Miami)

  • Jonathan P. West

    (University of Miami)

Abstract

Conspiracy theories and other pseudo-scientific claims about the Zika virus have been prominent on social media. To what extent are the public concerned about the virus, and to what extent have the public adopted Zika conspiracy theories? Using data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we show that a majority of Americans are not concerned about the Zika virus, but approximately one in five Americans believes in at least one Zika-related conspiracy theory. The most widely believed is that the virus is caused by genetically modified mosquitoes. We find that elevated levels of conspiracy thinking are correlated with both concern over Zika and belief in Zika-related conspiracy theories. For example, a person scoring the maximum on the conspiratorial thinking scale is estimated to believe in .61 Zika conspiracy theories while a person scoring the minimum is estimated to believe in only .06 Zika conspiracy theories. This study demonstrates the role of predispositions, specifically underlying conspiracy thinking, in the acceptance of conspiratorial and unscientific beliefs.

Suggested Citation

  • Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0243-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0243-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-019-0243-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-019-0243-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Bessi & Mauro Coletto & George Alexandru Davidescu & Antonio Scala & Guido Caldarelli & Walter Quattrociocchi, 2015. "Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    3. McClosky, Herbert & Chong, Dennis, 1985. "Similarities and Differences Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Radicals," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 329-363, July.
    4. Nyhan, Brendan & Dickinson, Franklin & Dudding, Sasha & Dylgjeri, Enxhi & Neiley, Eric & Pullerits, Christopher & Seog, Minae & Simpson, Andy & Szilagyi, Heather & Walmsley, Colin, 2016. "Classified or Coverup? The Effect of Redactions on Conspiracy Theory Beliefs," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 109-123, January.
    5. Joanne M. Miller & Kyle L. Saunders & Christina E. Farhart, 2016. "Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(4), pages 824-844, October.
    6. Motta, Matthew & Callaghan, Timothy & Sylvester, Steven, 2018. "Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 274-281.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    2. Milošević Đorđević, J. & Mari, S. & Vdović, M. & Milošević, A., 2021. "Links between conspiracy beliefs, vaccine knowledge, and trust: Anti-vaccine behavior of Serbian adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    3. Georgios Tsantopoulos & Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou & Evangelia Karasmanaki, 2021. "COVID-19: An Outcome of Biodiversity Loss or a Conspiracy? Investigating the Attitudes of Environmental Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Hoi-Wing Chan & Connie Pui-Yee Chiu & Shijiang Zuo & Xue Wang & Li Liu & Ying-yi Hong, 2021. "Not-so-straightforward links between believing in COVID-19-related conspiracy theories and engaging in disease-preventive behaviours," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Milošević Đorđević, J. & Mari, S. & Vdović, M. & Milošević, A., 2021. "Links between conspiracy beliefs, vaccine knowledge, and trust: Anti-vaccine behavior of Serbian adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    2. Callaghan, Timothy & Motta, Matthew & Sylvester, Steven & Lunz Trujillo, Kristin & Blackburn, Christine Crudo, 2019. "Parent psychology and the decision to delay childhood vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Michael Hannon, 2022. "Are knowledgeable voters better voters?," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 21(1), pages 29-54, February.
    4. Kathie M. d'I. Treen & Hywel T. P. Williams & Saffron J. O'Neill, 2020. "Online misinformation about climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    5. Motta, Matthew & Callaghan, Timothy & Sylvester, Steven, 2018. "Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 274-281.
    6. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    7. Michel, Hanno, 2020. "From local to global: The role of knowledge, transfer, and capacity building for successful energy transitions," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2020-603, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    9. Morrison, Mark & Duncan, Roderick & Parton, Kevin A., 2013. "Targeting segments in the Australian community to increase support for climate change policy," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 212-217.
    10. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    11. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    12. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    14. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    15. David A. Comerford, 2024. "Response Bias in Survey Measures of Expectations: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Expectations’ Inflation Module," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 56(4), pages 933-953, June.
    16. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    17. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    18. Chad M. Baum & Christian Gross, 2017. "Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 53-95, April.
    19. Heinz Welsch, 2022. "What shapes cognitions of climate change in Europe? Ideology, morality, and the role of educational attainment," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 386-395, June.
    20. Allison Joy Bailey & Caitlin M. Wills & Jamie Mitchem, 2022. "Attitudes towards climate change and scientific stories," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(4), pages 714-726, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0243-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.