Believing in conspiracy theories in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic: Drivers and public health implications

Conspiracy theories jeopardize public health by disseminating misinformation and undermining authoritative health guidelines. This study explores social factors associated with the belief in conspiracy theories in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing upon the theoretical framework of Max Weber, it posits that beliefs in conspiracy theories are linked to both instrumental rationality considerations, such as trust in health authorities, science, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as value-rationality based factors, such as ideological orientation. The study analyzes recent, nationally representative survey data and is the first to examine the social predictors of belief in conspiracy theories in Spain during the pandemic. The findings highlight that conspiracy theory beliefs are (a) associated with considerably worse vaccination behaviors, (b) not or only very weakly associated with standard demographics such as age, sex, or education, (c) related to instrumental rationality considerations, and (d) only weakly related to value-rationality indicators such as ideological and religious affiliations. In conclusion, the study underscores the significance of public health policies that specifically address conspiracy theory convictions, and to that end, advocates for the application of a Weberian sociological perspective to better understand the diverse rationalities underlying these beliefs, particularly in the absence of discernible demographic predictors.Ramon y Cajal research grant (RYC2018-023919-I)Agency ANR, ‘Investissements d’Avenir’ (LabEx Ecodec/ANR-11-LABXT0047

Explaining negative descriptions of Armenians in Turkish parliamentary speeches (1960–1980) via group position theory

This paper scrutinizes the role of Turkish politicians’ threat perception on negative descriptions of Armenians between 1960 and 1980. In so doing, it brings together the theoretical insights of group position theory with the scholarship on the perception of non-Muslim minorities in Turkey. Building on a comprehensive, mixed-method content analysis of Turkish parliamentary proceedings, it demonstrates that Turkish politicians are more likely to make negative comments about Armenians while debating about national security and foreign threats than when speaking about other topics. The paper concludes that perceived threats contribute to the negative descriptions of Armenians in Turkish politics.Peer reviewe

Perceived group threats and right-wing political party membership as driving forces of negative descriptions in Turkish Parliamentary debates (1983–2018)

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.To what extent do perceived threats explain negative descriptions of minorities in politics? This study addresses this ever-significant inquiry by scrutinising all mentions of Armenians in Turkish parliamentary proceedings between 1983 and 2018. Building on group position theory, it proposes that perceived threats influence the perception of Armenians in Turkish politics. The study relies on a quantitative content analysis to test this premise. The findings demonstrate that being a member of a right-wing political party and discussing security and diplomatic threats predict politicians’ negative descriptions of Armenians. The study concludes that perceived threats to Turkey’s national security and international standing contribute to the negative perception of Armenians in Turkish mainstream politics.This work was supported by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian: [Grant Number 227637]Peer reviewe

Turkish parliamentary debates about the international recognition of the Armenian genocide: development and variations in the official denialism

The main source of animosity in modern Turkish–Armenian relations is the debate on the international recognition of the Armenian genocide. To provide an evidence-based and thorough perspective on the Turkish political stance in this discussion, this article explores all the relevant speeches in Turkish parliamentary records. It pays particular attention to political parties’ stances, the historical evolution of the debate, and the significance of the individual profiles of parliamentarians who contributed to the discussion. The findings show that most political parties in Turkey articulated versions of denial, except for a few marginal anti-denial voices. The study concludes that while political parties’ ideological orientations predominantly shape the Turkish debate on the international recognition of the Armenian genocide, historical contexts, local memories, and the individual backgrounds of parliamentarians seem to inspire minor variations in their tones. © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.WOS:0008889949000012-s2.0-85142381143Social Sciences Citation IndexQ1ArticleUluslararasi isbirligi ile yapilmayan - HAYIR2022YÖK - 2022-23Kasi