Right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy mentality, and susceptibility to distorted alternative news

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical model

Figure 2. Experimental procedure

Table 1. Descriptives and zero-order correlations. Study 1

		M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1	Deceptive news			−.47***	−.25***	−.11	.05	−.01	−.06	−.07	−.09	.07	−.02
2	Perceived credibility	2.65	1.11		.23***	.11	.08	−.09	.18**	.13*	.03	−.11	.04
3	Attitudes toward candidate	5.93	2.22			−.24***	.22***	−.10	−.20**	−.23***	−.19**	.11	.02
4	Attitudes toward refugees	1.93	1.14				−.32***	.25***	.45***	.47***	.13*	−.08	.06
5	Voting propensity	3.96	1.92					−.06	−.23***	−.36***	−.11	.06	−.17**
6	Conspiracy mentality	4.13	1.22						.22***	.15**	.10	−.06	−.17**
7	Right-wing authoritarianism	2.94	0.96							.51***	−.03	−.03	.02
8	Political leaning	4.32	1.67								.15*	−.11	.18**
9	Age	28.29	9.63									−.59***	.06
10	Student		0.49										−.11
11	Male	0.38	0.49

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05. Significant results are marked in boldface.

Table 2. Regression analysis perceived credibility, Study 1

	Block 1					Block 2					Block 3
	b	SE	LL	UL		b	SE	LL	UL		b	SE	LL	UL
(Intercept)	0.47	0.07	0.33	0.61	***	0.46	0.07	0.32	0.6	***	0.47	0.07	0.34	0.61	***
Distorted news	−0.94	0.1	−1.14	−0.74	***	−0.92	0.1	−1.12	−0.73	***	−0.92	0.1	−1.11	−0.73	***
Right-wing authoritarianism						0.17	0.06	0.05	0.28	***	0.05	0.08	−0.1	0.21
Conspiracy mentality						−0.14	0.05	−0.24	−0.04	**	−0.32	0.07	−0.46	−0.18	***
Political leaning						0.03	0.06	−0.08	0.15		0	0.08	−0.15	0.15
Right-wing authoritarianism × distorted news											0.23	0.11	0	0.45	*
Conspiracy mentality × distorted news											0.32	0.1	0.13	0.52	***
Political attitude × distorted news											0.09	0.11	−0.13	0.31
	R^2 = .22***					R^2 = .26***					R^2 = .31***

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p ≤ .05. Significant results are marked in boldface.

Figure 3. Simple slopes for the perceived credibility of distorted versus journalist news among high (+1SD) versus low (-1SD) authoritarians in Study 1. RWA = Right-wing authoritarianism. Perceived credibility and authoritarianism were z-standardized. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (0 = “journalist news”, 1 = “distorted news”).

Figure 4. Simple slopes for the perceived credibility of distorted versus journalist news among participants scoring high (+1SD) versus low (-1SD) on conspiracy mentality in Study 1. CM = Conspiracy mentality. Perceived credibility and conspiracy mentality were z-standardized. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (0 = “journalist news”, 1 = “distorted news”).

Table 3. Model fit alternative models, Study 1

		χ^2	df	p	χ^2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	AIC	BIC
Acceptable fit					< 2.5	>.90	>.90	< .08
Excellent fit						>.95	>.95	< .05
1	Tested model	9.89	8	.27	1.24	1.00	.99	.03	5341	5444
2	Alternative mediation only	3.65	1	.06	3.65	.98	.89	.09	2891	2924
3	Alternative not adjusted for political leaning	18.2	5	<.001	3.65	.98	.91	.09	4588	4674
4	Alternative reversed model	47	8	<.001	5.87	.94	.80	.13	5378	5481

CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, RMSEA = root-mean square error. AIC = Akaike's Information Criterion, BIC = Bayes information criterion.

Table 4. Descriptives and zero-order correlations. Study 2

		M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1	Deceptive news			.00	−.61****	−.34****	−.36****	−.02	−.03	−.04	−.08	.01	.03	−.04	.04
2	Journalistic design				−.05	−.14*	−.09	.15*	−.11	.15*	.11	.05	.01	.01	−.08
3	Perceived credibility	2.71	1.34			.55***	.64***	.00	.19**	−.23***	.14*	.03	−.19**	.11	.04
4	Attitudes toward candidate	5.99	1.97				.81***	−.15*	.31***	−.20*	.00	−.07	.00	.14*	.08
5	Candidate perception	3.69	1.14					−.05	.24***	−.23***	.12	−.02	−.01	.09	.14*
6	Attitudes toward refugees	1.90	1.10						−.21***	.27***	.58***	.46***	−.09	−.01	.07
7	Voting propensity	4.38	1.93							−.13*	−.16*	−.23***	−.07	.18**	−.19**
8	Conspiracy mentality	4.30	1.19								.25***	.05	−.08	−.02	−.27****
9	Right-wing authoritarianism	2.86	0.94									.49***	−.08	.00	.10
10	Political leaning	3.59	1.51										−.04	.04	.11
11	Age	28.28	8.85											−.32***	.25***
12	Student														−.14*
13	Male

*** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05 Significant results are marked in boldface. Higher scores on attitude formation indicate a more favorable attitude towards the candidate. Higher scores on political orientation indicate right-wing orientation. Higher values on perceived credibility, threat perception, propensity to vote, conspiracy mentality or right-wing authoritarianism indicate a stronger expression of the respective construct. Exposure to distorted news, student status, and male gender were dummy-coded (i.e., the absence of the respective characteristic was coded as “0” and the presence as “1”)

Table 5. Regression analysis perceived credibility, Study 2

	Block 1					Block 2					Block 3
	b	SE	LL	UL		b	SE	LL	UL		b	SE	LL	UL
(Intercept)	0.64	0.07	0.49	0.79	***	0.64	0.07	0.5	0.77	***	0.65	0.07	0.52	0.78	***
Distorted news	−1.29	0.11	−1.5	−1.08	***	−1.28	0.1	−1.48	−1.09	***	−1.28	0.09	−1.46	−1.09	***
Right-wing authoritarianism						0.19	0.06	0.08	0.31	***	0.01	0.07	−0.13	0.15
Conspiracy mentality						−0.29	0.05	−0.39	−0.2	***	−0.53	0.06	−0.66	−0.41	***
Right political leaning						−0.05	0.06	−0.16	0.06		0.02	0.07	−0.13	0.16
Right-wing authoritarianism × distorted news											0.33	0.11	0.11	0.55	***
Conspiracy mentality × distorted news											0.43	0.09	0.25	0.61	***
Right political leaning × distorted news											−0.16	0.11	−0.38	0.06
	Radj^2 = .37***					Radj^2 = .45***					Radj^2 = .53***

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p ≤ .05. Significant results are marked in boldface. Higher scores on conspiracy mentality or right-wing authoritarianism indicate a stronger expression of the respective construct. Higher scores on political orientation indicate right-wing orientation. Parametric variables were z-transformed before the analysis. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (i.e., exposure to journalistic news was coded as “0” and exposure to distorted news as “1”). The conditional effects (i.e., the interaction terms) accordingly express the standardized association between right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy mentality, or political orientation amongst participants who were exposed to distorted news, whereas the unconditional effects represent the standardizes association amongst those exposed to journalist news.

Figure 5. Simple slopes for the perceived credibility of distorted versus journalist news among high (+1SD) versus low (-1SD) authoritarians in Study 2. RWA = Right-wing authoritarianism. Perceived credibility and authoritarianism were z-standardized. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (0 = “journalist news”, 1 = “distorted news”)

Figure 6. Simple slopes for the perceived credibility of distorted versus journalist news among participants scoring high (+1SD) versus low (-1SD) on conspiracy mentality in Study 2. CM = Conspiracy mentality. Perceived credibility and conspiracy mentality were z-standardized. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (0 = “journalist news“, 1 = “distorted news”)

Table 6. Descriptives and Zero-Order Correlations, Study 3

			M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Left-leaning article	1	Distorted versus balanced article			−.37***	−.47***	−.46***	−.11	.03	.07	.06	−.08	.01	.05	.01	.09
	2	Perceived credibility	3.27	1.51		.49***	.57***	.00	.07	−.04	.07	−.05	.05	−.04	−.03	.03
	3	Attitudes toward candidate	5.51	2.49			.78***	.06	.04	−0.15*	−.01	.03	−.07	.06	−.05	.04
	4	Candidate perception	3.71	1.48				.05	.05	−.09	.04	.01	−.03	.03	.06	.04
	5	Threat ascribed to toward refugees	2.89	1.30					−.52***	.40***	.55***	.49***	.23***	−.26***	.07	.16*
	6	Voting propensity green party	3.96	2.32						−.23***	−.38***	−.41***	−.30***	.35***	−.13*	−.14*
	7	Conspiracy mentality	4.89	1.54							.36***	.22***	.11	−.13*	−.08	.09
	8	Right-wing authoritarianism	3.20	1.51								.42***	.32***	−.30***	.11	.23***
	9	Political leaning	4.51	1.44									.13	−.14*	.08	−.02
	10	Age	41.48	18.67										−.64***	.21***	.08
	11	Student													−.16*	−.12
	12	Male														.03
	13	East-German residence
Right-leaning article	1	Distorted versus balanced article			−.55***	−.38***	−.44***	−.16*	.05	−.04	−.01	−.04	−.05	.09	−.01	−.05
	2	Perceived credibility	3.25	1.65		.54***	.62***	.09	−.06	.09	.13*	.05	.08	−.17**	.10	.04
	3	Attitudes toward candidate	5.79	2.52			.76***	−.21**	.36***	−.16*	−.22***	−.28***	−.10	.13*	.04	−.04
	4	Candidate perception	3.81	1.51				−.05	.16*	−.04	−.05	−.22***	−.11	.12	.07	.05
	5	Threat ascribed to toward refugees	2.80	1.27					−.57***	.46***	.56***	.52***	.18**	−.21**	.10	.14*
	6	Voting propensity green party	3.90	2.32						−.40***	−.45***	−.47***	−.29***	.34***	−.13	−.15*
	7	Conspiracy mentality	4.71	1.62							.50***	.25***	.11	−.14*	−.02	.09
	8	Right-wing authoritarianism	3.14	1.54								.39***	.31***	−.38***	.12	.22***
	9	Political leaning	4.40	1.47									.17*	−.19**	.11	.12
	10	Age	40.24	17.88										−.62***	.19**	.06
	11	Student													−.09	−.11
	12	Male														.02
	13	East-German residence

*** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05. Significant results are marked in boldface. Significant results are marked in boldface. Higher scores on attitude formation indicate a more favorable attitude towards the candidate. Higher scores on political orientation indicate right-wing orientation. Higher values on perceived credibility, threat perception, propensity to vote, conspiracy mentality or right-wing authoritarianism indicate a stronger expression of the respective construct. Exposure to distorted news, student status, male gender, and residence in Eastern Germany were dummy-coded (i.e., the absence of the respective characteristic was coded as “0” and the presence as “1”)

Table 7. Regression analysis perceived credibility, study 3

	Credibility per article type	Block 1					Block 2					Block 3
		b	SE	UL	LL		b	SE	UL	LL		b	SE	UL	LL	SEboot	ULboot	LLboot
Right-wing editorial line	(Intercept)	0.56	0.08	0.41	0.71	***	0.56	0.08	0.41	0.72	***	0.56	0.08	0.41	0.72	0.08	0.41	0.71	***
	Distorted news	−1.15	0.12	−1.37	−0.92	***	−1.15	0.12	−1.38	−0.92	***	−1.13	0.12	−1.36	−0.90	0.13	−1.37	−0.88	***
	Right-wing authoritarianism						0.13	0.08	−0.02	0.29		0.14	0.08	−0.01	0.29	0.14	−0.13	0.41	*
	Conspiracy mentality						0.01	0.07	−0.12	0.14		0.02	0.07	−0.11	0.15	0.15	−0.28	0.31
	Political leaning						−0.02	0.07	−0.16	0.12		−0.03	0.07	−0.17	0.10	0.11	−0.25	0.19
	Right-wing authoritarianism × distorted news											0.23	0.16	−0.08	0.54	0.06	0.10	0.35
	Conspiracy mentality × distorted news											0.23	0.13	−0.03	0.48	0.07	0.09	0.36	^†
	Political leaning × distorted news											0.02	0.14	−0.25	0.29	0.08	−0.13	0.17
		Radj^2 = .30***					Radj^2 = .31					Radj^2 = .34*
Left-wing editorial line	(Intercept)	0.36	0.08	0.20	0.52	***	0.38	0.08	0.22	0.55	***	0.36	0.08	0.20	0.52	0.08	0.20	0.52	***
	Distorted news	−0.7	0.12	−0.93	−0.48	***	−0.74	0.11	−0.96	−0.52	***	−0.74	0.11	−0.96	−0.52	0.12	−0.98	−0.50	***
	Right-wing authoritarianism						0.17	0.07	0.03	0.31	*	0.18	0.07	0.04	0.32	0.14	−0.10	0.46	**
	Conspiracy mentality						−0.05	0.06	−0.17	0.08		−0.05	0.06	−0.18	0.07	0.14	−0.32	0.21
	Political leaning						−0.14	0.07	−0.29	0.00	^†	−0.15	0.07	−0.29	−0.01	0.11	−0.36	0.07	*
	Right-wing authoritarianism × distorted news											0.27	0.14	0.00	0.55	0.06	0.15	0.40	*
	Conspiracy mentality × distorted news											0.12	0.13	−0.13	0.36	0.07	−0.02	0.25
	Political leaning × distorted news											−0.28	0.15	−0.56	0.01	0.07	−0.41	−0.15	†
		Radj^2 = .13***					Radj^2 = .15*					Radj^2 = .17*

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p ≤ .05, ^†p < . 08. Weights and standard errors are based on heteroskedasticity robust variance covariance matrices, bootstrapped standard errors (SE_boot) are based on 5000 bootstrap samples. Significant results are marked in boldface.

Figure 7. Simple slopes for the perceived credibility of the right-wing leaning distorted versus journalist news among high (+1SD) versus low (-1SD) authoritarians in Study 3. RWA = Right-wing authoritarianism. Perceived credibility and authoritarianism were z-standardized. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (0 = “journalist news”, 1 = “distorted news”)

Figure 8. Simple slopes for the perceived credibility of the right-wing leaning distorted versus journalist news among participants scoring high (+1SD) versus low (-1SD) on conspiracy mentality in Study 3. CM = conspiracy mentality. Perceived credibility and conspiracy mentality were z-standardized. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (0 = “journalist news”, 1 = “distorted news”)

Figure 9. Simple slopes for the perceived credibility of the left-wing leaning distorted versus journalist news among high (+1SD) versus low (-1SD) authoritarians in Study 3. RWA = Right-wing authoritarianism. Perceived credibility and authoritarianism were z-standardized. Exposure to distorted news was dummy-coded (0 = “journalist news”, 1 = “distorted news”)

Table 8. Model fit depending on constrains, Study 3

	Candidate perception	χ^2	df	p	χ^2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	AIC	BIC
threshold for acceptable fit					< 2.5	>.90	>.90	< .08
threshold for excellent fit						>.95	>.95	< .05
1	unconstrained baseline model	19	16	.26	1.19	.99	.98	.03	8298	8597
2	fully constrained model	33	17	.01	1.94	.98	.92	.06	8229	8515
3	partially constrained model	300	26	0.29	1.15	.99	.99	0.03	8198	8456

Notes. CFI = Comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA = Root-mean square error. AIC = Akaikes Information Criterion, BIC = Bayes information criterion. The unconstrained baseline model allowed all path to vary as a function of the articles editorial line, the fully constrained model allowed none of the path to vary. The partially constrained model set the path between distorted news and perceived credibility, the paths from authoritarianism to perceived credibility, and the path between political orientation of the participant and candidate perception free.

Data availability statement

All material, raw data, and analysis scripts are available via the open science framework under the following link https://osf.io/xj7tm/