This study examines the social impact of political conspiracy theories, focusing on how media exposure and individual predispositions lead to negative spillover effects on unrelated outgroups. Using an online survey experiment (N = 1,973), we test how media coverage of a fictitious conspiracy theory alleging malicious actions by a foreign government affects participants’ willingness to ostracize a secondary outgroup: the uninvolved citizens of the same country. We also assess the role of conspiracy mentality. We first exposed participants to one-sided full debunking, two-sided partial debunking, or neutral coverage of the alleged conspiracy, and then measured their willingness to ostracize the secondary outgroup through self-reports, a list experiment, and a Cyberball game. We found that although media exposure type did not significantly affect ostracism overall, significant interaction emerged among participants high in conspiracy mentality. For this group, one-sided full debunking increased ostracism relative to other conditions. Conspiracy mentality also consistently predicted ostracism across all measures. Our findings highlight the potential backfire effects of certain debunking styles for specific audiences and underscore the importance of individual predispositions in shaping behavioral responses to conspiracy theory coverage.
AdamS.RohrbachT.KellerF.MakhortykhM.de LeónE.ValliC.BaghumyanA.SydorovaM. (2025). How do media contribute to the dissemination of conspiracy beliefs? A field study combining panel and web tracking at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Communication, 75(6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf033
2.
AllportG. W. (1954).The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
3.
AndersonC. A. (1982). Inoculation and counterexplanation: Debiasing techniques in the perseverance of social theories. Social Cognition, 1(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1982.1.2.126
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
6.
BruderM.HaffkeP.NeaveN.NouripanahN.ImhoffR. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy mentality questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
7.
BrunsA.HurcombeE.HarringtonS. (2022). Covering conspiracy: Approaches to reporting the COVID/5G conspiracy theory. Digital Journalism, 10(6), 930–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1968921
8.
BrylkaA.Jasinskaja-LahtiI.MähönenT. A. (2016). The majority influence on interminority attitudes: The secondary transfer effect of positive and negative contact. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.12.007
9.
CastelliL.TomelleriS.ZogmaisterC. (2008). Implicit ingroup metafavoritism: Subtle preference for ingroup members displaying ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 807–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208315210
10.
ChanM. S.AlbarracínD. (2023). A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(9), 1514–1525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01623-8
11.
ChenZ.PoonK.-T.DeWallC. N.JiangT. (2020). Life lacks meaning without acceptance: Ostracism triggers suicidal thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1423–1443. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000238
12.
ClarkeC. E.DixonG. N.HoltonA.McKeeverB. W. (2015). Including “Evidentiary Balance” in News media coverage of vaccine risk. Health Communication, 30(5), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.867006
13.
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
14.
de LeónE.MakhortykhM.AdamS. (2024). Hyperpartisan, alternative, and conspiracy media users: An anti-establishment portrait. Political Communication, 41(6), 877–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2325426
15.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2023). What are conspiracy theories? A definitional approach to their correlates, consequences, and communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031329
EinsteinK. L.GlickD. M. (2015). Do I think BLS data are BS? The consequences of conspiracy theories. Political Behavior, 37(3), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z
18.
EndersA. M.UscinskiJ. E.SeeligM. I.KlofstadC. A.WuchtyS.FunchionJ. R.MurthiM. N.PremaratneK.StolerJ. (2023). The relationship between social media use and beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation. Political Behavior, 45(2), 781–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09734-6
19.
FreelonD. (2024). The shared psychological roots of prejudice and conspiracy theory belief. Current Opinion in Psychology, 56, 101773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101773
20.
GalizziM. M.Navarro-MartinezD. (2019). On the external validity of social preference games: A systematic lab-field study. Management Science, 65(3), 976–1002. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908
21.
GkinopoulosT.UysalM. S. (2021). Vulnerability, self-uncertainty, and collective narcissism mediate the relationship between ostracism and conspiracy beliefs: Α representative sample study during the first wave of the pandemic. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q4hkn
22.
GraeupnerD.ComanA. (2017). The dark side of meaning-making: How social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.10.003
23.
HagenL. M. (1993). Opportune witnesses: An analysis of balance in the selection of sources und arguments in the leading German newspapers’ coverage of the census issue. European Journal of Communication, 8(3), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323193008003004
24.
HalesA. H.RenD.WilliamsK. D. (2017). Protect, correct, and eject: Ostracism as a social influence tool. In HarkinsS. J.BurgerJ. M.WilliamsK. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence (pp. 205–217). Oxford University Press.
25.
HalesA. H.WilliamsK. D. (2018). Marginalized individuals and extremism: The role of ostracism in openness to extreme groups. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12257
26.
HalpernD.ValenzuelaS.KatzJ.MirandaJ. P. (2019). From belief in conspiracy theories to trust in others: Which factors influence exposure, believing and sharing fake news. In MeiselwitzG. (Ed.), Social computing and social media: Design, human behavior and analytics. HCII 2019. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 217–232). Springer.
27.
HarwoodJ.PaoliniS.JoyceN.RubinM.ArroyoA. (2011). Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X524263
28.
HoggM. A.AbramsD.BrewerM. B. (2017). Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690909
ImhoffR.BertlichT.FrenkenM. (2022). Tearing apart the “evil” twins: A general conspiracy mentality is not the same as specific conspiracy beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101349
31.
ImhoffR.BruderM. (2014). Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. European Journal of Personality, 28(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1930
32.
ImhoffR.LambertyP. K. (2017). Too special to be duped: Need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(6), 724–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2265
33.
ImhoffR.LambertyP. (2020). A bioweapon or a hoax? The link between distinct conspiracy beliefs about the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak and pandemic behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620934692
34.
JanmohamedK.WalterN.NyhanK.KhoshnoodK.TuckerJ. D.SangngamN.AlticeF. L.DingQ.WongA.SchwitzkyZ. M.BauchC. T.De ChoudhuryM.PapakyriakopoulosO.KumarN. (2021). Interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Health Communication, 26(12), 846–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.2021460
35.
JolleyD.MeleadyR.DouglasK. M. (2020). 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
36.
JuddC. M.ParkB. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 778–788. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.778
37.
KimM.CaoX. (2016). The impact of exposure to media messages promoting government conspiracy theories on distrust in the government: Evidence from a two-stage randomized experiment. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3808–3827. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5127
38.
KlofstadC.ChristleyO.DiekmanA.KüblerS.EndersA.FunchionJ.LittrellS.MurthiM.PremaratneK.SeeligM.VerdearD.WuchtyS.DrochonH.UscinskiJ. (2025). Belief in White replacement. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 13(2), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2024.2342834
39.
KonkesC.LesterL. (2017). Incomplete knowledge, rumour and truth seeking: When conspiracy theories become news. Journalism Studies, 18(7), 826–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1089182
KurzbanR.LearyM. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187
42.
LyonsB.MerolaV.ReiflerJ. (2019). Not just asking questions: Effects of implicit and explicit conspiracy information about vaccines and genetic modification. Health Communication, 34(14), 1741–1750. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1530526
43.
MaertensR.RoozenbeekJ.BasolM.van der LindenS. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 27(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000315
44.
MaertensR.RoozenbeekJ.SimonsJ. S.LewandowskyS.MaturoV.GoldbergB.XuR.van der LindenS. (2025). Psychological booster shots targeting memory increase long-term resistance against misinformation. Nature Communications, 16(1), 2062. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57205-x
45.
MahlD.SchäferM. S.ZengJ. (2023). Conspiracy theories in online environments: An interdisciplinary literature review and agenda for future research. New Media & Society, 25(7), 1781–1801. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221075759
46.
McCombsM.ValenzuelaS. (2021). Setting the agenda (3rd ed.). Polity Press.
MeuerM.OeberstA.ImhofR. (2021). Believe it or not—No support for an effect of providing explanatory or threat-related information on conspiracy theories’ credibility. International Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.587
49.
MitchelsteinE.MatassiM.BoczkowskiP. J. (2020). Minimal effects, maximum panic: Social media and democracy in Latin America. Social Media + Society, 6(4), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984452
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
52.
OliverA.TracyR. E.YoungS. G.WoutD. A. (2024). Black + White = Prototypically Black: Visualizing Black and White people’s mental representations of Black–White biracial people. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(7), 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231164026
53.
PaluckE. L.GreenS. A.GreenD. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
54.
PertweeE.SimasC.LarsonH. J. (2022). An epidemic of uncertainty: Rumors, conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy. Nature Medicine, 28(3), 456–459. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01728-z
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
57.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2013). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Psychology Press.
58.
PoonK.-T.ChenZ.WongW.-Y. (2020). Beliefs in conspiracy theories following ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219898944
59.
RuckerD. D.PettyR. E.BrinolP. (2008). What’s in a frame anyway?: A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.01.008
60.
SchaafsmaJ.WilliamsK. D. (2012). Exclusion, intergroup hostility, and religious fundamentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 829–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.015
61.
SimonB.MlickiP.JohnstonL.CaetanoA.WarowickiM.Van KnippenbergA.DeridderR. (1990). The effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and overestimation of relative ingroup size. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(6), 519–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200606
62.
SparksG. G. (2013). Media effects research: A basic overview (4th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
63.
StojanovA.HannawaA. (2023). Validating a German version of the conspiracy mentality scale (CMS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(5), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2022.2149408
64.
SwamiV. (2012). Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories: The case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00280
65.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Brooks/Cole.
66.
TauschN.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ. B.PsaltisC.SchmidK.PopanJ. R.CairnsE.HughesJ. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553
67.
TsfatiY.BoomgaardenH. G.StrömbäckJ.VliegenthartR.DamstraA.LindgrenE. (2020). Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: Literature review and synthesis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(2), 157–173. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443
68.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
69.
UscinskiJ.EndersA. M.KlofstadC.StolerJ. (2022). Cause and effect: On the antecedents and consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101364
70.
UscinskiJ. E.KlofstadC.AtkinsonM. D. (2016). What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915621621
71.
van der LindenS. (2015). The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.045
72.
van der MeerT. G. L. A.HameleersM.OhmeJ. (2023). Can fighting misinformation have a negative spillover effect? How warnings for the threat of misinformation can decrease general news credibility. Journalism Studies, 24(6), 803–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2187652
VezzaliL.Di BernardoG. A.CoccoV. M.StathiS.CapozzaD. (2021). Reducing prejudice in the society at large: A review of the secondary transfer effect and directions for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(3), e12583. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12583
75.
WalterN.TukachinskyR. (2020). A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it?Communication Research, 47(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600
76.
WesselmannE. D.WilliamsK. D. (2017). Social life and social death: Inclusion, ostracism, and rejection in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217708861
WilliamsK. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275–314). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1
79.
WilliamsK. D.JarvisB. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765
80.
XuM.PettyR. E. (2022). Two-sided messages promote openness for morally based attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1151–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220988371
81.
XuM.PettyR. E. (2024). Two-sided messages promote openness for a variety of deeply entrenched attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221128113
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.
