Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40583913›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

Information from social ties predicts conspiracy beliefs: Evidence from the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Katherine Ognyanova, James N Druckman, Jonathan Schulman, Matthew A Baum, Roy H Perlis, David Lazer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katherine OgnyanovaSchool of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3038-7077
James N DruckmanDepartment of Political Science, University of Rochester, 333 Harkness Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-6790
Jonathan SchulmanInstitute for the Study of Citizens and Politics, University of Pennsylvania, 133 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Matthew A BaumHarvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy St., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9893-1492
Roy H PerlisDepartment of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St., Boston, MA 02114, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5862-6757
David LazerNetwork Science Institute, Northeastern University, 177 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02148, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Belief in conspiracy theories has significant social and political consequences. While prior research has focused primarily on psychological predispositions as drivers of conspiracy beliefs, relatively less is known about the role of social networks. Here, we examine how information received from different sources is linked to the endorsement of conspiracy theories, using the 2024 attempted assassination of presidential candidate Donald Trump as a case study. In surveys conducted days after the attack, social media was the most commonly reported source of conspiracy theories about the event. At the same time, information consumption on social media was not consistently associated with stronger conspiracy beliefs. In contrast, information received through interpersonal ties was more closely linked to belief in both left-leaning and right-leaning conspiratorial narratives. These findings highlight the importance of examining the social dimensions of conspiracy belief formation. Understanding how interpersonal communication shapes conspiracy beliefs is critical for explaining their spread and persistence. Future research would benefit from further investigating the social contexts that sustain conspiratorial thinking.

Indexed as

conspiracy beliefsmisinformationpartisanshipsocial mediasocial ties

Identifiers

PMID40583913
PMCPMC12203515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.