Anti-immigration conspiracy beliefs are associated with endorsement of conventional and violent actions opposing immigration and attitudes towards democracy across 21 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite widespread speculation that conspiracy beliefs foster anti-democratic outcomes, the empirical picture is inconsistent. To clarify this literature, we examine the relationships that conspiracy beliefs have with commitment to reactionary action and criticism of democracy, focusing on a global issue: immigration. We expected that people who believe that their government uses immigration to diversify the population against citizens’ wishes (anti-migration conspiracy beliefs) would be more committed to conventional and violent action to oppose immigration, and more critical of democracy. However, societal-level factors – economic performance and democratic functioning – were expected to influence (strengthen, weaken) these links. As hypothesized, multi-level analyses (N = 4353) from 21 countries revealed that economic prosperity attenuated the positive link between anti-migration conspiracy beliefs and commitment to reactionary action. Paradoxically, more democratic societies evidenced stronger links between conspiracy beliefs and conventional (but not violent) action to oppose immigration. Thus, more democratic societies appear to invite conventional forms of action to oppose immigration which may, in turn, weaken democratic norms of inclusion. Results highlight the interplay of individual- and societal-level factors underlying illiberal movements. The link between conspiracy beliefs and reactionary movements that promote intolerance and undermine democracy was investigated in 21 countries. Economic prosperity and democratic functioning moderated the positive link between anti-migration conspiracy beliefs and commitment to reactionary action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".