How strong are elite cues compared to conspiracy cues in authoritarian contexts? We analyze this question by turning to cueing effects on citizens’ UN attitudes in two authoritarian countries in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Our argument is based on the following arguments: First, research has demonstrated that international organizations are viewed quite favorably by publics across the developing world with the exception of citizens in the predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East. Given the high level of anti-Americanism and the high level of popularity of conspiracy theories in the Middle East, international organizations that the United States is associated with or is thought to be in control of are likely to be perceived as even more unfavorable by the local populations. Second, however, the research on IO attitudes also showed elite cues to strongly influence citizen attitudes towards international actors across the globe. As the elites in the two countries under study here can be considered rather favorable toward the UN, the question therefore arises whether positive elite endorsements or negative popular cues referring to the UN as being under US control are exerting stronger effects on citizens’ attitudes toward (unknown) international actors.
Our project seeks to answer exactly that question. We expect that elite endorsements of authoritarian elites to dominate the popular conspiracy cues. To test this expectation, we conduct experiments in Saudi Arabia and Jordan to see whether our hypotheses hold in their respective contexts. Preliminary analysis of survey data indicates that while conspiracy theories are strongly influencing citizens’ UN attitudes, the strength of these conspiracy cues is significantly moderated by positive endorsements of the (authoritarian) elites.
