CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

“There must be a reason”: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification

Open access
Prasad, Monica, Perrin, Andrew J., Bezila, Kieran, Hoffman, Steve G., Kindleberger, Kate, Manturuk, Kim, Powers, Ashleigh Smith·2009·Sociological Inquiry
DOI 10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00280.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

One of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election was the strength and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Scholars have suggested that this belief was the result of a campaign of false information and innuendo from the Bush administration. We call this the information environment explanation. Using a technique of “challenge interviews” on a sample of voters who reported believing in a link between Saddam and 9/11, we propose instead a social psychological explanation for the belief in this link. We identify a number of social psychological mechanisms voters use to maintain false beliefs in the face of disconfirming information, and we show that for a subset of voters the main reason to believe in the link was that it made sense of the administration's decision to go to war against Iraq. We call this inferred justification: for these voters, the fact of the war led to a search for a justification for it, which led them to infer the existence of ties between Iraq and 9/11.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00280.x

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People's worldview, or personal ideology, can override unwelcome facts and determine the effectiveness of retractions, which can even backfire when they are attitude-incongruent and strengthen the initial held beliefs.

    “People’s worldview, or personal ideology, can indeed override unwelcome facts and determine the effectiveness of retractions, which can even backfire when they are attitude-incongruent and strengthen the initial held beliefs (i.e., “attitude bolstering” [50]).”

    From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [50]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Prasad, M., Perrin, A. J., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S. G., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K., & Powers, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Millsaps College (US)
ORCID
Venue
Sociological Inquiry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-08
Volume
79
Issue
2
Pages
142-162
ISSN
  • 0038-0245 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-682X
DOI
10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00280.x
OpenAlex
W2047471858
Cited by
97
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
18.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Sociological Inquiry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
September 11 attacks, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, 2004 presidential election, Iraq War, false belief, belief maintenance, disconfirming information, Bush administration, voter attitudes, information environment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review