"They're Eating the Dogs, They're Eating the Cats:" How Racial Attitudes and Partisanship Shape Conspiracy Theory Beliefs in the United States

Abstract

From “Mexico isn’t sending their best” to “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats,” elite-driven racist conspiracy theories have dominated American politics headlines for the past decade. In my dissertation, I strive to understand how racial attitudes affect support for conspiracy theories. Many conspiracy theories are about racial minorities, but there is limited research about how racial attitudes specifically influence support for conspiracy theories. There is a broad consensus that partisanship affects which conspiracy theories people support; however, there are times when people believe conspiracy theories that contradict their partisan cues. I propose a theoretical model, “The Partisan Incongruence Model (PIM),” that explains that when a conspiracy theory contradicts someone’s partisan beliefs, they then evaluate the conspiracy theory in terms of their racial attitudes. Specifically, racial conservatives support conspiracy theories where racial minorities are “villains,” and racial liberals support conspiracy theories where racial minorities are the “victims.” I test this theory by analyzing survey data and an original experiment. My main contribution is developing a causal theory for conspiracy theory beliefs, which is something the literature sorely lacks. I also contribute to American political behavior literature more broadly by identifying scenarios when partisanship alone does not sufficiently explain political opinions.