Abstract
Rapid technological change in the media industry, rising inequality and polarization are likely determinants of “truth decay”, a social phenomenon characterized by radical disagreement about facts, an increase in the volume of opinions, and the blurring of facts with opinions (Bursztyn et al., 2022; Kavanaugh et al., 2018). Truth decay threatens democracy through declines in trust of institutions and fuels further political and social polarization. While there are many angles from which one can study the nature of truth decay, we will focus on the demand for a specific type of untruths, i.e conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is a theory that attributes the ultimate cause of a significant social or political event to a secret plot by powerful actors (Douglas et al., 2019). The current confluence of political polarization and technological change create a fertile environment for conspiracy theories to thrive and corrode the social fabric: a YouGov poll reveals that roughly 40% of the respondents believe that “[…] there is a single group of people who secretly control events and rule the world together.” While some conspiratorial beliefs are innocuous for contemporary societies (e.g., flat earth), others threaten democracy (e.g.,QAnon), public health (e.g., anti-vaccine beliefs) and global sustainability (e.g., climate change denial). This project proposes three distinct, but related, milestones to study the demand for conspiracy theories. All milestones build on solid theoretical grounds and leverage the toolbox of experimental economics which allows for tight control over the variables of interest and thus well-suited to study the mechanisms behind the demand for conspiracy theories. In Milestone 1, we develop a theoretical belief-based model to describe the typical consumer of information that may fuel extreme beliefs. We also design two laboratory experiments to test the hypotheses of the model. In the first experiment, we build on the literature in psychology to better understand which characteristics shape the demand for conspiracies (see, e.g., Goreis and Voracek, 2019). In the second experiment, we test the evolution of beliefs. In Milestone 2, we develop a theoretical framework to conceptualize whether different features of conspiracy-related news are complements or substitutes. We also design a set of experiments that allow us to examine which features of information are more attention-grabbing or emotion-inducing. To do this, we will take advantage of the facial recognition software in the laboratory at the University of Milan. In Milestone 3, we study how the demand for conspiracy theories is represented in Italian society by conducting a survey of a representative sample of Italians. We also plan to embed an information study to test to what extent emotionally-loaded information affects conspirational beliefs and support for redistribution -- which can in turn exacerbates social polarization. References Bursztyn, L., Rao, A., Roth, C., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2022). Opinions as facts, ECONtribute Discussion Paper No. 159. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538-542. Goreis A., & Voracek, M. (2019). A systematic review and metanalysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: Field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:205. Kavanagh, J. & Michael D. R. (2018). Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Results achieved
Overall, we find that while individuals value accurate information, this preference does not consistently translate into behaviors that reduce misinformation. Participants demonstrate a clear willingness to verify information and express concern for accuracy, yet many still choose to consume or share information of uncertain epistemic quality. We show that this gap between valuing truth and acting on it is driven less by deliberate deception than by psychological factors that shape how people engage with information. Across our studies, we find that individual characteristics are stronger predictors of behavior than our experimental manipulations. Overconfidence plays a central role in explaining why people share unverified information, while stable traits such as conspiracy thinking and conformity are more important determinants of the demand for conspiracy-themed content than manipulated features such as social consensus or prior beliefs. We also find that beliefs are resistant to change. Individuals with stronger prior beliefs are generally less responsive to contradictory information, suggesting that existing beliefs shape how new information is interpreted. At the same time, our results indicate that people often recognize differences in the quality of the information they consume and do not necessarily treat all information as equally credible, even when they choose to engage with content of low epistemic value. Finally, our findings suggest that interventions aimed solely at increasing access to fact-checking or providing corrective feedback may have limited effectiveness. Although participants are willing to use fact-checking in principle, many continue to share unverified information, and correcting overconfidence can even reduce their willingness to seek verification. Taken together, our results suggest that reducing misinformation requires addressing not only the availability of accurate information, but also the psychological factors—such as overconfidence, entrenched beliefs, and stable individual dispositions—that shape how people choose, evaluate, and share information.Project details
Unibo Team Leader: Stephanie Heger
Unibo involved Department/s:
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
Coordinator:
Università degli Studi di MILANO(Italy)
Total Unibo Contribution: Euro (EUR) 91.314,00
Project Duration in months: 24
Start Date:
30/11/2023
End Date:
28/02/2026
