“Forbidden knowledge” claims are central to conspiracy theories, yet they have received little systematic study. Forbidden knowledge claims imply that information is censored or suppressed. Theoretically, forbidden knowledge could be alluring or alarming, depending on alignment with recipients’ political worldviews. In three studies (N = 2363, two preregistered), we examined censorship claims about (conservative-aligned) controversial COVID-19 topics. In Studies 1a and 2 participants read COVID-19 claims framed as censored or not. Conservatives reported more attraction to and belief in the claims, regardless of censorship condition, while liberals showed decreased interest and belief when information was presented as censored. Study 1b revealed divergent interpretations of suppression motives: liberals assumed censored information was harmful or false, whereas conservatives deemed it valuable and true. In Study 2, conservatives made more critical thinking errors in a vaccine risk reasoning task when information was framed as censored. Findings reveal the polarizing effects of forbidden knowledge frames.
AshokkumarA.TalaifarS.FraserW.T.LandaburR.BuhrmesterM.GómezÁ.ParedesB.SwannW.B. (2020). Censoring political opposition online: Who does it and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104031
2.
BarrettP.M.SimsJ.G. (2021). False accusation: The unfounded claim that social media companies censor conservatives. New York University, Stern School of Business, Center for Business and Human Rights. Retrieved from https://perma.cc/X5A8-HQLB
3.
BehrouzianG.NisbetE.C.DalA.ÇarkoğluA. (2016). Resisting Censorship: How Citizens Navigate Closed Media Environments. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4345–4367.
BorahP.LorenzanoK.VishnevskayaA.AustinE. (2022). Conservative media use and Covid-19 related behavior: The moderating role of media literacy variables. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126318
6.
BrehmJ.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
CalvilloD.P.RossB.J.GarciaR.J.SmelterT.J.RutchickA.M. (2020). Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of covid-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620940539
ClarkC.J.JussimL.FreyK.StevensS.T.Al-GharbiM.AquinoK.BaileyJ.M.BarbaroN.BaumeisterR.F.Bleske-RechekA.BussD.CeciS.Del GiudiceM.DittoP.H.ForgasJ.P.GearyD.C.GeherG.HaiderS.HoneycuttN.JoshiH. . .von HippelW. (2023). Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(48):e2301642120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2301642120.
ConwayL.G.WoodardS.R.ZubrodA.ChanL. (2021). Why are Conservatives less concerned about the coronavirus (COVID-19) than Liberals? comparing political, experiential, and partisan messaging explanations. Personality and Individual Differences, 183, 111124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111124
14.
DeppeK.D.GonzalezF.J.NeimanJ.L.JacobsC.PahlkeJ.SmithK.B.HibbingJ.R. (2015). Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 314-331.
15.
DharshingS.HilleS.L.WüstenhagenR. (2017). The influence of political orientation on the strength and temporal persistence of policy framing effects. Ecological Economics, 142, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.014
16.
DittoP.H.LiuB.S.ClarkC.J.WojcikS.P.ChenE.E.GradyR.H.CelnikerJ.B.ZingerJ.F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273-291.
17.
DittoP.H.LopezD.F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
EckerU.K.LewandowskyS.CookJ.SchmidP.FazioL.K.BrashierN.KendeouP.VragaE.K.AmazeenM. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
22.
EndersA.FarhartC.MillerJ.UscinskiJ.SaundersK.DrochonH. (2023). Are Republicans and conservatives more likely to believe conspiracy theories?Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09812-3
23.
HamiltonL. C.SaffordT.G. (2021). Elite cues and the rapid decline in trust in science agencies on COVID-19. Sociological Perspectives, 64(5), 988–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214211022391
24.
HeglandA.ZhangA.L.ZichettellaB.PasekJ. (2022). A partisan pandemic: How covid-19 was primed for polarization. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221083686
25.
ImhoffR.LambertyP. (2017). Too special to be duped: Need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(47), 724-734. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2265
26.
IyengarS.WestwoodS.J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24583091
27.
JaidkaK.MukerjeeS.LelkesY. (2023). Silenced on social media: The gatekeeping functions of shadowbans in the American twitterverse. Journal of Communication, 73(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac050
28.
JansenS.MartinB. (2015). The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. International Journal of Communication, 5, 656–671.
29.
JhaverS.BoylstonC.YangD.BruckmanA. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of deplatforming as a moderation strategy on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479525
30.
JolleyD.MeleadyR.DouglasK.M. (2019). Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12385
31.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407-424.
32.
KahanD.M.PetersE.DawsonE.C.SlovicP. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.2
33.
KubinE.von SikorskiC.GrayK. (2024). Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13011
34.
McLamoreQ.SyropoulosS.LeidnerB.HirschbergerG.YoungK.ZeinR.A.BaumertA.BilewiczM.BilgenA.van BezouwM.J.ChatardA.ChekrounP.ChinchillaJ.ChoiH.-S.EuhH.GomezA.KardosP.KhooY.H.LiM.. . .BurrowsB. (2022). Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations. Scientific Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07508-6
35.
NelsonT.E.OxleyZ.M.ClawsonR.A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221–246.
OlshanskyA.LandrumA.R. (2020). Third-person perceptions and calls for censorship of flat earth videos on YouTube. Media and Communication, 8(2), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2853
38.
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific.ac—a subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
PereiraA.HarrisE.Van BavelJ.J. (2023). Identity concerns drive belief: The impact of partisan identity on the belief and dissemination of true and false news. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(1), 24–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211030004
41.
PetrocelliJ.V. (2022). Politically oriented bullshit detection: Attitudinally conditional bullshit receptivity and bullshit sensitivity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 25, 1635-1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220987602
RogersR. (2020). Deplatforming: Following extreme internet celebrities to telegram and alternative social media. European Journal of Communication, 35(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120922066
44.
RosenbergB.D.SiegelJ.T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091
45.
SettleJ.E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.
46.
SkitkaL.J.WashburnA.N. (2016). Are conservatives from Mars and liberals from Venus? Maybe not so much. In ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Social psychology of political polarization (pp. 78-101). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
47.
SuleS.DaCostaM.C.DeCouE.GilsonC.WallaceK.GoffS.L. (2023). Communication of COVID-19 misinformation on social media by physicians in the US. JAMA Network Open,6(8):e2328928. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28928
WashburnA.N.SkitkaL.J. (2017). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 972-980.
WilsonA.E.ParkerV.A.FeinbergM. (2020). Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005
56.
WorchelS. (1992). Beyond a commodity theory analysis of censorship: When abundance and personalism enhance scarcity effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1301_7
57.
WorchelS.ArnoldS.E. (1973). The effects of censorship and attractiveness of the censor on Attitude Change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90072-3
58.
WorchelS.ArnoldS.E.BakerM. (1975). The effects of censorship on attitude change: The influence of censor and communication characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00678.x
ZhaoE.WuQ.CrimminsE.M.AilshireJ.A. (2020). Media trust and infection mitigating behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA. BMJ Global Health, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003323
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
