Not Just Asking Questions: Effects of Implicit and Explicit Conspiracy Information About Vaccines and Genetic Modification

"It remains an open question how persuasive conspiracy messages are when they relay suspicious coincidences, innuendo, and imagination...rather than offer a fully fleshed-out sinister explanation."

Research suggests that exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories reduces vaccination intention. While a conspiracy theory refers to a specific conspiracy-based explanation for events, as in identifying a small group acting in secret for their own benefit and against the public interest, "conspiracy cues" can be far more subtle and implicit, or perhaps even unintentional. This study compares the effect of explicit and implicit conspiracy cues on the adoption of conspiracy beliefs. It also examines 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. The researchers examine these questions using a real-world but low-salience conspiracy theory concerning Zika, genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes, and vaccines in Brazil.

Specifically, the (existing) conspiracy theory examined in the study alleged that the Zika epidemic was the result of the release of GM mosquitoes by a subsidiary of a pharmaceutical and biotechnology company in order to generate the need for vaccine, from which the parent pharmaceutical company would profit.

Data come from an Amazon Mechanical Turk sample of 1,018 American adults, collected in January 2018. The experiment used a 5-cell design (2 [implicit/explicit conspiracy cue] X 2 [correction/none], with a control). The control included only a basic description of the Zika crisis. The explicit conspiracy cue condition included the full theory as attributed to "concerned citizens", including the responsible party (Oxitec), their motivation (profit from vaccines developed by pharmaceutical parent company), and the means by which they allegedly carried out the plan (GM mosquitoes), and it made explicit connections among these. The explicit condition also included number of pieces of information that implicitly supported those claims, such as the need for a vaccine and the availability of funding for those who can solve the crisis, and Oxitec's release of GM mosquitoes in Brazil prior to the Zika outbreak. The implicit condition included this information but not the explicit claims. In their place, a Brazilian politician was quoted asking "who benefits?", vaguely implying a conspiracy.

Half of those exposed to either the implicit or explicit conspiracy cue were then randomly exposed to a fact-check - "correction" - clarifying the actual origin of the Zika epidemic, the role of GM mosquitoes in combating it, and the company's lack of ties to a vaccine trial.

The primary dependent variables measured conspiracy beliefs directly on 7-point scales; the researchers also collected open-ended responses from participants. Then, they examined the following potential moderators: vaccine and GM organism (GMO) concern; feelings toward pharmaceutical companies, the biotechnology corporation Monsanto, and the media; predisposition to conspiracy belief; cognitive reflection; deference to expertise; reliance on intuition; need for uniqueness; and locus of control.

In short, the study found that although explicit conspiracy cues are most influential, implicit presentation (subtle cues) can also produce conspiracy belief among the public. However, fact-checking generally appears (in direct, though not open-ended measures of belief) to offset the conspiracy cue's influence. Selected, more detailed findings:

• Those in both the implicit and explicit conditions exhibited significantly greater conspiracy beliefs than those in the control, and a Wald test confirmed the effect of the explicit condition was significantly stronger than the implicit condition (p < .001).
• Those with warmer feelings toward the media were less influenced by the explicit conspiracy cue. Or conversely, those who dislike the media in general were more receptive to explicitly stated conspiracy information.
• Those with colder feelings toward pharmaceutical companies were more receptive to the conspiracy theory when presented explicitly, in both uncorrected and corrected conditions.
• Compared to the control group, respondents exposed to either implied or explicit conspiracy cues against a company exhibited greater perception that the company was treated unfairly.

Having found that "the news media appear capable of inadvertently transmitting conspiracy beliefs, and readers' receptivity to the subtle cues...examined does not depend on either a conspiratorial worldview or low trust toward the target groups," the researchers offer some reflections for journalism practice. They write, "Journalists should avoid including 'errant data' that may be misconstrued under conditions of uncertainty...It should be noted that within the context of a 24-hour news cycle, news media may benefit from suggesting a more nefarious story than current evidence supports, hoping to garner audience interest. If so, implicit conspiracy cues are likely to persist within the current news environment."

That is to say, misinformation may enter the information environment via traditional media gatekeepers themselves (not Reddit or Twitter users), with no malicious intent necessary. Potentially unintentional inclusion of stray details could ultimately produce misperceptions about public health crises. In practice, the researchers claim, news professionals will be best served by providing conspiracy theory-preempting causal explanations of events whenever possible. Timing may be critical: Beliefs might be more enduring if the correction is more delayed than the one delivered in this study's experiment. Also, more longstanding beliefs may be less correctable. Finally, the reach of the correction is almost certain to be less than that of the initial provocative story, and the resulting conspiracy beliefs may then continue to be spread via interpersonal networks.

More generally, they observe, misinformation is an increasing concern in the field of health communication. However, this study's findings echo those of others who have shown that authoritative sources are able to diminish health-related misperceptions. The present study adds to this field of research the finding that such corrections are likely to work roughly as well against both explicit and implicit cues. The researchers suggest avenues for future study, such as more work to better understand how various forms of mal-information, as well as corrective information, spread through both online and offline interpersonal networks.

In conclusion, the researchers "find [that] the dangers of implicit conspiracy cues warrant greater scrutiny. Under conditions of great uncertainty, professional communicators must avoid the inclusion of information that can be misconstrued to suggest bad actors, nefarious motives, or monstrous methods."