Dilemmas of Distrust: Conspiracy Beliefs, Elite Rhetoric, and Motivated Reasoning

• Author: Scott Radnitz
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211034558
• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Date: 01 December 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211034558

Political Research Quarterly

© 2021 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129211034558

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Conspiracy theories have become more prominent in

world politics in recent years, as widespread distrust

among the public has been met with rhetoric from oppor-

tunistic politicians (Mounk 2018; Wodak 2015). As a

mode of political discourse, conspiracy theories appear to

provide certain rhetorical advantages, as they cast doubt

on unflattering news, defame political adversaries, and

deflect blame—all while appealing to receptive audi-

ences. When political calculation meets public cynicism,

conspiratorial rhetoric may aid in agenda setting and the

construction of political coalitions (Yablokov 2018).

Yet leaders seeking to shape opinion or win support

through conspiracy theories face at least two major hur-

dles. First is the challenge that confronts any instance of

elite communication: the intended recipients of conspira-

torial messages possess preexisting knowledge and biases

that make them susceptible to some appeals and resistant

to others. The second is more specific to the cynical logic

of conspiracy: people prone to believe conspiracy theo-

ries also tend to be skeptical of official sources, inclining

them to discount information from authority figures.

Understanding the opportunities and limits of conspira-

cism in politics is critical, as conspiracy theories, when

wielded in the service of power, can weaken democratic

accountability and potentially incite people to violence

(Jolley and Paterson 2020; Rosenblum and Muirhead

2019).

This study analyzes how people regard conspiracy

claims from official sources in relation to their preexist-

ing biases. To isolate the effects of conspiratorial political

messaging, both as an exogenous contributor to beliefs

and as a rhetorical form distinct from other types of

claims, I conduct a survey experiment that employs an

original vignette describing a suspicious scenario that

may or may not be a conspiracy. I randomly assign infor-

mation about the official interpretation of the event and

the actors involved to determine what factors cause

respondents to perceive a conspiracy. The design pro-

vides insights into how respondents weigh (dis)trust of

official sources against the perceived plausibility of the

scenario.

The surveys were administered in two post-Soviet

states, Georgia and Kazakhstan, which lie within a region

1034558PRQXXX10.1177/10659129211034558Political Research QuarterlyRadnitz

research-article2021

1University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Corresponding Author:

Scott Radnitz, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies,

University of Washington, Thomson Hall, Box 353650, Seattle, WA,

98115, USA.

Email: srad@uw.edu

Dilemmas of Distrust: Conspiracy Beliefs,

Elite Rhetoric, and Motivated Reasoning

Scott Radnitz1

Abstract

Conspiracy theories are playing an increasingly prominent role worldwide in both political rhetoric and popular

belief. Previous research has emphasized the individual-level factors behind conspiracy belief but paid less attention

to the role of elite framing, while focusing mostly on domestic political contexts. This study assesses the relative

weight of official conspiracy claims and motivated biases in producing conspiracy beliefs, in two countries where

identities other than partisanship are salient: Georgia and Kazakhstan. I report the results of a survey experiment

that depicts a possible conspiracy and varies the content of official claims and relevant contextual details. The results

show that motivated reasoning stemming from state-level geopolitical identities is strongly associated with higher

conspiracy belief, whereas official claims have little effect on people’s perceptions of conspiracy. Respondents who

exhibit higher conspiracy ideation are more likely to perceive a conspiracy but do not weight motivated biases or

official claims differently from people with lower conspiratorial predispositions. The findings indicate the importance

of (geopolitical) identities in shaping conspiracy beliefs and highlight some of the constraints facing elites who seek to

benefit from the use of conspiracy claims.

Keywords

conspiracy theories, motivated reasoning, geopolitics, post-Soviet, framing, identity

2022, Vol. 75(4) 1143–1157

Article