Conspiracy beliefs and negative attitudes towards outgroups in times of crises: Experimental evidence from Germany

Rebecca Endtricht; Eylem Kanol

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312418

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 12, 2024
13 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Cengiz Erisen, Editor PONE-D-24-24527Conspiracy beliefs and negative attitudes towards outgroups in times of crises: Experimental evidence from GermanyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kanol, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In your revision, please pay careful attention to the following: Both reviewers raise important concerns regarding the conceptual framework, methodological clarifications, and the integration and presentation of results. They also recommend updates to the literature, particularly emphasizing recent work in political science that tackles ideology and conspiracy beliefs. I strongly encourage you to review and incorporate recent studies published in political science to strengthen your manuscript's theoretical foundation and relevance in the current discourse. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Cengiz Erisen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [grant number MOTRA- 13N15223]" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: “Conspiracy beliefs and negative attitudes towards outgroups in times of crises: Experimental evidence from Germany” is a manuscript (MS) that rests on a survey experiment administered to a large representative sample of the general German population consisting of 2,171 respondents. It investigates whether and to what extent exposure to conspiratorial framing of crisis scenarios impacts individuals' negative assessments of a diverse range of outgroups. The findings confirm that even vaguely suggestive vignettes implying conspiratorial thinking result in significant increase in hostility to certain outgroups like Muslims or Russians. I think the MS addresses an interesting topic with appropriate methods and mostly fine presentation. It can be published after a round of revision addressing the issues below. The experiment results are first presented visually in figure 1 as relative group means. It is then reported that there are significant imbalances between groups in terms of pretreatment cofounders; age and migration background, so there is an OLS analysis where these are controlled for. But the same OLS controls for a number of other variables, too; for whose inclusion no similar justification is offered. Since this is a randomized experiment there is no legitimate point in controlling for additional variables, whose inclusion may generate suppressor effects on behalf of the treatments, potentially leading to bias. So I think we need to see different OLS models where i) the treatment categories are the only predictors ii) age and migration would be included as a predictors alongside the treatment iii) the current OLS model with the additional controls (to give a more comprehensive understanding of the correlates of outgroup hostility, rather than to isolate the effects of the treatment). The 1st and 3rd of these may go to some sort of appendix to save space. Please also add a measure of fit to the models. (I believe I don’t have access to the current appendix that the MS mentions, so apologies if these are already present). The moderating effects of ideology is an important topic that can be explored with more theoretical elaboration. Treatment effects look more certain and pronounced among the left compared to the right, which is a bit at odds with the theoretical expectations (“quadratic”) laid out in the lit rev section. So this can be discussed with a few sentences. The discussion of limitations is appropriate. However, the following sentence sounds like a non sequitur and I think should be dropped: “However, analyses of mean scores in the control group did not indicate a clear trend based on the order of the outgroups, suggesting that order effects were minimal. “Since we do not know the counterfactual of how baseline scores would fare under another random ordering we cannot infer from the observed scores whether the current ordering had any effect. Minor: The MS has problems of precision in writing. - At times the MS seems to display the strangely common academic mistake of conflating the concepts of “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy”; and uses the latter to refer to the former. “Consequences of conspiracies” in the first sentence of abstract should be [consequences] “of conspiracy theories” or “of conspiracy beliefs” etc. instead. Similarly, the first subtitle that follows the intro should be sth like “conspiracy theories in times of crises” not conspiracies, since you are not examining conspiracies in any way. - “a quadratic relationship between the intensity of political ideology and conspiracy beliefs concerning a range of societal issues, noting that individuals at the ideological extremes are more inclined to endorse conspiracy theories”: Sounds like this should be “Quadratic relationship between the direction of (unidimensional) political ideology…” if extremes (i.e. those with more intense ideological beliefs, left or right) are indeed more inclined. - “heterogeneous effects of ideology” also sounds a misnomer. From the figures presented, ideology seems to have moderating effects for the treatment, resulting in heterogeneous effects of the treatment. Reviewer #2: I find the manuscript titled "Conspiracy Beliefs and Negative Attitudes Towards Outgroups in Times of Crises: Experimental Evidence from Germany" to be a thought-provoking and engaging piece of research. The study looks into the consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs during crises, particularly in terms of intergroup attitudes. There is much to commend in this work, and it holds significant potential. The article is very well-written, but some sections require further clarification. I recommend the following revisions: 1. Conceptual Clarification: The study focuses on the concept of "conspiracy beliefs" rather than "conspiracy mentality," which is a common focus in conspiracy theory research. However, the authors should clarify why they chose to use "conspiracy beliefs" instead of "conspiracy mentality." Is it because "conspiracy beliefs" are more suitable for experimental studies, or does the theoretical framework of the study necessitate this choice? A clear explanation of this decision would enhance the conceptual clarity of the paper. 2. Literature on the Consequences of Conspiracy Beliefs: While the sections “Conspiracy Theories in Times of Crises” and “Negative Outgroup Attitudes as a Consequence of Conspiracies” briefly address the literature, the paper would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of the consequences of conspiracy beliefs. The field is rich with studies on this topic, and incorporating more of this literature could strengthen the paper. A dedicated section on the consequences of conspiracy beliefs, placed between the two aforementioned sections, could help readers better understand the study's significance. 3. Ideological Extremity and Conspiracy Beliefs: The study’s findings supporting the ideological extremity hypothesis are insightful in understanding the role of ideologies in conspiracy beliefs. However, the paper should also discuss alternative perspectives on the role of ideology in conspiracy beliefs. Citing literature that suggests right-wing supporters are more prone to conspiracy theories, or that there are no significant ideological differences in endorsing conspiracy theories, could provide a more balanced view and inform readers about different arguments on this topic. 4. Research Design and Data Section: The authors note that 12% of respondents self-identified as right-wing, compared to 43% identifying as left-wing and 44% as centrist. This distribution is intriguing and warrants further discussion. What might explain these differences? Could it be the survey sampling strategy, or perhaps it reflects the current political climate in Germany? Addressing these questions could provide valuable context for interpreting the findings. 5. Control Variables: The study controls for gender, level of education, religion, migration background, form of survey administration, and whether respondents resided in a former East German state. However, the authors might consider including party identity as a control variable, especially given the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and its influence on German politics. Including party identity (or vote choice) could offer additional insights, particularly considering the party's stance on migration. Overall, I found this manuscript to be an engaging read, and I believe it could make a significant contribution to the field after some revisions. ******** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312418.r001
Revision 1
9 Sep 2024 Author Response Dear Cengiz Erisen, dear reviewers, We would like to thank the two reviewers for carefully reading the manuscript and for their insightful and constructive feedback on the manuscript. We have tried to address all their critical observations. We believe that these revisions have notably improved the quality of our paper, and we hope you find the changes to be in line with the journal’s standards. We responded to each of the reviewers’ comments (in italic and indented). We have highlighted significant changes in yellow both in the manuscript and in the online appendix. Key revisions include additional model specifications with and without control variables, acknowledging and addressing certain theoretical insights highlighted by the reviewers, and editing the terminology. We sincerely thank you once again for considering this manuscript for publication. With best regards! Eylem Kanol & Rebecca Endtricht Reviewer #1: “Conspiracy beliefs and negative attitudes towards outgroups in times of crises: Experimental evidence from Germany” is a manuscript (MS) that rests on a survey experiment administered to a large representative sample of the general German population consisting of 2,171 respondents. It investigates whether and to what extent exposure to conspiratorial framing of crisis scenarios impacts individuals' negative assessments of a diverse range of outgroups. The findings confirm that even vaguely suggestive vignettes implying conspiratorial thinking result in significant increase in hostility to certain outgroups like Muslims or Russians. I think the MS addresses an interesting topic with appropriate methods and mostly fine presentation. It can be published after a round of revision addressing the issues below. The experiment results are first presented visually in figure 1 as relative group means. It is then reported that there are significant imbalances between groups in terms of pretreatment cofounders; age and migration background, so there is an OLS analysis where these are controlled for. But the same OLS controls for a number of other variables, too; for whose inclusion no similar justification is offered. Since this is a randomized experiment there is no legitimate point in controlling for additional variables, whose inclusion may generate suppressor effects on behalf of the treatments, potentially leading to bias. So I think we need to see different OLS models where i) the treatment categories are the only predictors ii) age and migration would be included as a predictors alongside the treatment iii) the current OLS model with the additional controls (to give a more comprehensive understanding of the correlates of outgroup hostility, rather than to isolate the effects of the treatment). The 1st and 3rd of these may go to some sort of appendix to save space. Please also add a measure of fit to the models. (I believe I don’t have access to the current appendix that the MS mentions, so apologies if these are already present). • We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion and have implemented it by estimating three models: one without controls, one with age and migration background as controls, and a final model that includes additional controls (also incorporating political party preference as suggested by Reviewer 2). In the main manuscript, we report the results from the second model, which includes the two control variables. The other two models are detailed in the Online Appendix. Additionally, we have included a measure of fit for each model. We now also use the Model 2 (our main model) for the analyses of the interaction effects. The moderating effects of ideology is an important topic that can be explored with more theoretical elaboration. Treatment effects look more certain and pronounced among the left compared to the right, which is a bit at odds with the theoretical expectations (“quadratic”) laid out in the lit rev section. So this can be discussed with a few sentences. • In response to the reviewer's suggestion to further explore the role of ideology in our results, we have expanded our interpretation in the discussion section. While we acknowledge that the reviewer correctly observes that the treatment effects are somewhat more pronounced on the left, it is important to note that these effects are also significant and align with expectations on the right, but not among centrist respondents. This pattern supports the existence of a quadratic relationship, as discussed in the theory section. Therefore, we have retained our interpretation in this direction but also acknowledged how our findings contrast with some of the existing literature, which suggests a more linear relationship, particularly emphasizing the right's susceptibility to conspiracy theories. The discussion of limitations is appropriate. However, the following sentence sounds like a non sequitur and I think should be dropped: “However, analyses of mean scores in the control group did not indicate a clear trend based on the order of the outgroups, suggesting that order effects were minimal. “Since we do not know the counterfactual of how baseline scores would fare under another random ordering we cannot infer from the observed scores whether the current ordering had any effect. • We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Indeed we cannot entirely rule out potential order effects. We have removed the sentence and adjusted the limitation accordingly by adding: “Therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that the order in which the outgroups were presented may have influenced respondents’ answers, potentially biasing the results.” Minor: The MS has problems of precision in writing. - At times the MS seems to display the strangely common academic mistake of conflating the concepts of “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy”; and uses the latter to refer to the former. “Consequences of conspiracies” in the first sentence of abstract should be [consequences] “of conspiracy theories” or “of conspiracy beliefs” etc. instead. Similarly, the first subtitle that follows the intro should be sth like “conspiracy theories in times of crises” not conspiracies, since you are not examining conspiracies in any way. • The reviewer is right in highlighting this mistake. We went through the manuscript to harmonize the terminology and to avoid the use of the term “conspiracy.” - “a quadratic relationship between the intensity of political ideology and conspiracy beliefs concerning a range of societal issues, noting that individuals at the ideological extremes are more inclined to endorse conspiracy theories”: Sounds like this should be “Quadratic relationship between the direction of (unidimensional) political ideology…” if extremes (i.e. those with more intense ideological beliefs, left or right) are indeed more inclined. • We agree with the reviewer that the formulation was not clear. We have changed it accordingly so that it indicates that the respondents on the extremes are more inclined to endorse conspiracy theoris. - “heterogeneous effects of ideology” also sounds a misnomer. From the figures presented, ideology seems to have moderating effects for the treatment, resulting in heterogeneous effects of the treatment. • Again we would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the article and for pointing out this minomer. We have corrected this mistake and changed the title to: “Heterogeneous treatment effects across ideology.” Reviewer #2: I find the manuscript titled "Conspiracy Beliefs and Negative Attitudes Towards Outgroups in Times of Crises: Experimental Evidence from Germany" to be a thought-provoking and engaging piece of research. The study looks into the consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs during crises, particularly in terms of intergroup attitudes. There is much to commend in this work, and it holds significant potential. The article is very well-written, but some sections require further clarification. I recommend the following revisions: 1. Conceptual Clarification: The study focuses on the concept of "conspiracy beliefs" rather than "conspiracy mentality," which is a common focus in conspiracy theory research. However, the authors should clarify why they chose to use "conspiracy beliefs" instead of "conspiracy mentality." Is it because "conspiracy beliefs" are more suitable for experimental studies, or does the theoretical framework of the study necessitate this choice? A clear explanation of this decision would enhance the conceptual clarity of the paper. • We thank the reviewer for their suggestion to clarify our terminology. We have included a brief definition of both “conspiracy belief” and “conspiracy mentality” in the section “Conspiracy theories in times of crises”, explaining why we use the term conspiracy belief. In our survey study, we do not directly measure “conspiracy mentality,” which is conceptualized as a personality trait, but instead focus on conspiracy beliefs in specific (experimentally induced) situations. 2. Literature on the Consequences of Conspiracy Beliefs: While the sections “Conspiracy Theories in Times of Crises” and “Negative Outgroup Attitudes as a Consequence of Conspiracies” briefly address the literature, the paper would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of the consequences of conspiracy beliefs. The field is rich with studies on this topic, and incorporating more of this literature could strengthen the paper. A dedicated section on the consequences of conspiracy beliefs, placed between the two aforementioned sections, could help readers better understand the study's significance. • This is also a very good suggestion by the reviewer. We have included a discussion of recent research on consequences of conspiracy beliefs on the societal level, including consequences regarding social, health-related, and political circumstances and outcomes. However, given the extensive nature of the existing research, we are unable to address all areas in sufficient detail within our manuscript. Thus, we have further referenced two comprehensive reviews on this topic in our manuscript. We hope that this brief overview aligns with the reviewer's expectations. 3. Ideological Extremity and Conspiracy Beliefs: The study’s findings supporting the ideological extremity hypothesis are insightful in understanding the role of ideologies in conspiracy beliefs. However, the paper should also discuss alternative perspectives on the role of ideology in conspiracy beliefs. Citing literature that suggests right-wing supporters are more prone to conspiracy theories, or that there are no significant ideological differences in endorsing conspiracy theories, could provide a more balanced view and inform readers about different arguments on this topic. • We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. In line with their suggestion, we enhanced the literature review and emphasized existing studies that show how right-wing supporters are more prone to conspiracy theories. We also point to a recently published study which employed a more nuanced research design and highlighted how the endorsement of conspiracy theories depends on their specific content and their political endorsment by partisan/ideological elites (p. 10). 4. Research Design and Data Section: The authors note that 12% of respondents self-identified as right-wing, compared to 43% identifying as left-wing and 44% as centrist. This distribution is intriguing and warrants further discussion. What might explain these differences? Could it be the survey sampling strategy, or perhaps it reflects the current political climate in Germany? Addressing these questions could provide valuable context for interpreting the findings. • We added a brief statement discussing this distribution along with additional references. At the time of the survey left and center-left parties were very strong in Germany, which may partially explain why many respondents self-placed themselves on the left side of the scale. Moreover, previous studies indicate that such a skewed distribution is quite typical for Germany, when it comes to ideological self-placement. Nevertheless we now highlight this limitation and stress the potential under-representation of right-wing supporters in the sample. 5. Control Variables: The study controls for gender, level of education, religion, migration background, form of survey administration, and whether respondents resided in a former East German state. However, the authors might consider including party identity as a control variable, especially given the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and its influence on German politics. Including party identity (or vote choice) could offer additional insights, particularly considering the party's stance on migration. • This is a good suggestion by the reviewer. In the survey the respondents were asked, which party they would vote for if the German federal election was taking place next Sunday. We used this variable as a proxy for party identity and included it in the Model 3 (see also the discussion above). Including this variable did not change our findings. Overall, I found this manuscript to be an engaging read, and I believe it could make a significant contribution to the field after some revisions. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312418.r002
7 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Cengiz Erisen, Editor Conspiracy beliefs and negative attitudes towards outgroups in times of crises: Experimental evidence from Germany PONE-D-24-24527R1 Dear Dr. Kanol, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Cengiz Erisen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I find the revisions satisfactory and congratulate the authors for an interesting article. I think the manuscript can now be published. Reviewer #2: Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my initial comments and for the revisions made to the manuscript. I appreciate the careful consideration you have given to each point, and the updated manuscript reflects a stronger theoretical and empirical foundation. Overall, I find the paper much improved and believe it makes a significant contribution to the study of conspiracy beliefs, their consequences, and their ideological contexts. I would like to note a minor additional comments for your consideration: Wording Clarification on p.11: In the sentence, "Similarly, extremist political extremists frequently target identifiable 'evil' groups in their rhetoric," there seems to be a potential wording error with the repetition of "extremist." It appears that the intended phrase is "political extremists," rather than "extremist political extremists." Clarifying this would enhance the readability and accuracy of the statement. Beyond this minor point, I have no further suggestions. The clarifications provided on the conceptual focus, the expanded discussion on the consequences of conspiracy beliefs, the balanced perspectives on the role of ideology, and the additional context on the distribution of political self-placement all enhance the manuscript's clarity and depth. Furthermore, the decision to include party identity as a control variable is an excellent addition and helps address potential nuances in the data. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312418.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Cengiz Erisen, Editor PONE-D-24-24527R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kanol, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Cengiz Erisen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312418.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .