CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Misinformation and Its ImpactsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation

Open access
Garrett, R. Kelly, Weeks, Brian E.·2017·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0184733PMC PMC5603156
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Widespread misperceptions undermine citizens' decision-making ability. Conclusions based on falsehoods and conspiracy theories are by definition flawed. This article demonstrates that individuals' epistemic beliefs-beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how one comes to know-have important implications for perception accuracy. The present study uses a series of large, nationally representative surveys of the U.S. population to produce valid and reliable measures of three aspects of epistemic beliefs: reliance on intuition for factual beliefs (Faith in Intuition for facts), importance of consistency between empirical evidence and beliefs (Need for evidence), and conviction that "facts" are politically constructed (Truth is political). Analyses confirm that these factors complement established predictors of misperception, substantively increasing our ability to explain both individuals' propensity to engage in conspiracist ideation, and their willingness to embrace falsehoods about high-profile scientific and political issues. Individuals who view reality as a political construct are significantly more likely to embrace falsehoods, whereas those who believe that their conclusions must hew to available evidence tend to hold more accurate beliefs. Confidence in the ability to intuitively recognize truth is a uniquely important predictor of conspiracist ideation. Results suggest that efforts to counter misperceptions may be helped by promoting epistemic beliefs emphasizing the importance of evidence, cautious use of feelings, and trust that rigorous assessment by knowledgeable specialists is an effective guard against political manipulation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0184733

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Scatterplots with locally weighted regression lines. Values shown are for composite scales. Size of marker corresponds to number of cases. Fit lines drawn using iterative least squares (Loess) with 50% of the data points to calculate the local smoother via the Epanechnikov kernel function. Fit lines suggest a modest linear relationship between conspiracist ideation and each of the three epistemic beliefs.
Fig 1 Scatterplots with locally weighted regression lines. Values shown are for composite scales. Size of marker corresponds to number of cases. Fit lines drawn using iterative least squares (Loess) with 50% of the data points to calculate the local smoother via the Epanechnikov kernel function. Fit lines suggest a modest linear relationship between conspiracist ideation and each of the three epistemic beliefs.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Structural equation model summarizing factors associated with conspiracist ideation. Circles denote latent variables; education is manifest. All links shown are standardized and significant; p < .02. Except for education, manifest variables and their loadings are not shown. Disturbances on endogenous factors are also omitted from the figure. Path coefficients for all three epistemic beliefs measures indicate that these factors have an influence on conspiracist ideation that is comparable to or larger than other established predictors.
Fig 2 Structural equation model summarizing factors associated with conspiracist ideation. Circles denote latent variables; education is manifest. All links shown are standardized and significant; p < .02. Except for education, manifest variables and their loadings are not shown. Disturbances on endogenous factors are also omitted from the figure. Path coefficients for all three epistemic beliefs measures indicate that these factors have an influence on conspiracist ideation that is comparable to or larger than other established predictors.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 61 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. M Hemingway, 2011, Lies, damned lies, and ‘fact checking’, The Weekly Standard, 17

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Garrett, R. K., & Weeks, B. E.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Garrett, R. Kelly
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2017-09-18
Volume
12
Issue
9
Pages
e0184733
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0184733
PMC
PMC5603156
OpenAlex
W2756124350
Cited by
167
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
22.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (1149599)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
epistemological beliefs, conspiracist ideation, misunderstanding, conspiracy theories, faith in intuition, belief accuracy, political manipulation, scientific misinformation
MeSH terms
Culture, Decision Making, Humans, Politics, United States

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