Conspiracy theory

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[6]

For other uses, see Conspiracy theory (disambiguation). For a list of conspiracy theories, see List of conspiracy theories.

The Eye of Providence, or the all-seeing eye of God, seen here on the US$1 bill, has been taken by some to be evidence of a conspiracy involving the founders of the United States and the Illuminati.[1]

Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[6][7] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.[8][9] Research suggests that conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—may be psychologically harmful or pathological[10][11] and that it is correlated with psychological projection, paranoia and Machiavellianism.[12] Psychologists attribute finding a conspiracy where there is none to a mental phenomenon called illusory pattern perception.[13][14]

Effects of conspiracy theories include being a significant obstacle to improvements in public health,[15][16] reduced trust in scientific evidence,[15][17] radicalization and ideological reinforcement of extremist groups,[18][19] and negative consequences for the economy.[18]

Etymology and usage

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". It cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example,[20][21] although it also appeared in print as early as April 1870.[22] The word "conspiracy" derives from the Latin con- ("with, together") and spirare ("to breathe").

Robert Blaskiewicz comments that examples of the term were used as early as the nineteenth century and states that its usage has always been derogatory.[23] According to a study by Andrew McKenzie-McHarg, in contrast, in the nineteenth century the term conspiracy theory simply "suggests a plausible postulate of a conspiracy" and "did not, at this stage, carry any connotations, either negative or positive", though sometimes a postulate so-labeled was criticized.[24] The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the subject of a conspiracy theory, which claims the term was popularized by the CIA in order to discredit conspiratorial believers, particularly critics of the Warren Commission, by making them a target of ridicule.[25] In his 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America, political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith suggested that the term entered everyday language in the United States after 1964, the year in which the Warren Commission published its findings on the Kennedy assassination, with The New York Times running five stories that year using the term.[26] However, deHaven-Smith's suggestion has been criticized by Michael Butter, a Professor of American Literary and Cultural History at the University of Tübingen, on the grounds that a CIA document which deHaven-Smith referenced, Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report – which was publicly released in 1976 after a Freedom of Information Act request – does not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the singular, and only mentions "conspiracy theories" once, in the sentence "Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organisation [sic], for example, by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us."[27]

Difference from conspiracy

A conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy, which refers to any covert plan involving two or more people.[28] In contrast, the term "conspiracy theory" refers to hypothesized conspiracies that have specific characteristics. For example, conspiracist beliefs invariably oppose the mainstream consensus among those people who are qualified to evaluate their accuracy, such as scientists or historians.[29] Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to socially persecuted knowledge or a stigmatized mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account.[28] Michael Barkun describes a conspiracy theory as a "template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events".[28]

Real conspiracies, even very simple ones, are difficult to conceal and routinely experience unexpected problems.[30] In contrast, conspiracy theories suggest that conspiracies are unrealistically successful and that groups of conspirators, such as bureaucracies, can act with near-perfect competence and secrecy. The causes of events or situations are simplified to exclude complex or interacting factors, as well as the role of chance and unintended consequences. Nearly all observations are explained as having been deliberately planned by the alleged conspirators.[30]

In conspiracy theories, the conspirators are usually claimed to be acting with extreme malice.[30] As described by Robert Brotherton:

The malevolent intent assumed by most conspiracy theories goes far beyond everyday plots borne out of self-interest, corruption, cruelty, and criminality. The postulated conspirators are not merely people with selfish agendas or differing values. Rather, conspiracy theories postulate a black-and-white world in which good is struggling against evil. The general public is cast as the victim of organised persecution, and the motives of the alleged conspirators often verge on pure maniacal evil. At the very least, the conspirators are said to have an almost inhuman disregard for the basic liberty and well-being of the general population. More grandiose conspiracy theories portray the conspirators as being Evil Incarnate: of having caused all the ills from which we suffer, committing abominable acts of unthinkable cruelty on a routine basis, and striving ultimately to subvert or destroy everything we hold dear.[30]

Examples
Further information: List of conspiracy theories

A conspiracy theory may take any matter as its subject, but certain subjects attract greater interest than others. Favored subjects include famous deaths and assassinations, morally dubious government activities, suppressed technologies, and "false flag" terrorism. Among the longest-standing and most widely recognized conspiracy theories are notions concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 1969 Apollo moon landings, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as well as numerous theories pertaining to alleged plots for world domination by various groups both real and imaginary.[31]

Popularity

Conspiracy beliefs are widespread around the world.[32] In rural Africa, common targets of conspiracy theorizing include societal elites, enemy tribes, and the Western world, with conspirators often alleged to enact their plans via sorcery or witchcraft; one common belief identifies modern technology as itself being a form of sorcery, created with the goal of harming or controlling the people.[32] In China, one widely published conspiracy theory claims that a number of events including the rise of Hitler, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and climate change were planned by the Rothschild family, which may have led to effects on discussions about China's currency policy.[33][34]

Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, contributing to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[35][36][37][38] The general predisposition to believe conspiracy theories cuts across partisan and ideological lines. Conspiratorial thinking is correlated with antigovernmental orientations and a low sense of political efficacy, with conspiracy believers perceiving a governmental threat to individual rights and displaying a deep skepticism that who one votes for really matters.[39]

Conspiracy theories are often commonly believed, some even being held by the majority of the population.[32][33][40] A broad cross-section of Americans today gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories.[41] For instance, a study conducted in 2016 found that 10% of Americans think the chemtrail conspiracy theory is "completely true" and 20-30% think it is "somewhat true".[42] This puts "the equivalent of 120 million Americans in the 'chemtrails are real' camp."[42] Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

Conspiracy theories are widely present on the Web in the form of blogs and YouTube videos, as well as on social media. Whether the Web has increased the prevalence of conspiracy theories or not is an open research question.[43] The presence and representation of conspiracy theories in search engine results has been monitored and studied, showing significant variation across different topics, and a general absence of reputable, high-quality links in the results.[44]

One conspiracy theory that propagated through former US President Barack Obama's time in office[45] claimed that he was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii[46]- where he was born. Former governor of Arkansas and political opponent of Obama, Mike Huckabee made headlines in 2011[47] when he, among other members of Republican leadership, continued to question Obama's citizenship status.

Types

A conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries, regions and periods of history.[28]

Walker's five kinds

Jesse Walker (2013) has identified five kinds of conspiracy theories:

  • The "Enemy Outside" refers to theories based on figures alleged to be scheming against a community from without.
  • The "Enemy Within" finds the conspirators lurking inside the nation, indistinguishable from ordinary citizens.
  • The "Enemy Above" involves powerful people manipulating events for their own gain.
  • The "Enemy Below" features the lower classes working to overturn the social order.
  • The "Benevolent Conspiracies" are angelic forces that work behind the scenes to improve the world and help people.[48]

Barkun's three types

Michael Barkun has identified three classifications of conspiracy theory:

  • Event conspiracy theories. This refers to limited and well-defined events. Examples may include such conspiracies theories as those concerning the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, and the spread of AIDS.[49]
  • Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church.[49]
  • Superconspiracy theories. For Barkun, such theories link multiple alleged conspiracies together hierarchically. At the summit is a distant but all-powerful evil force. His cited examples are the ideas of David Icke and Milton William Cooper.[49]

Rothbard: shallow vs. deep

Murray Rothbard argues in favor of a model that contrasts "deep" conspiracy theories to "shallow" ones. According to Rothbard, a "shallow" theorist observes an event and asks Cui bono? ("Who benefits?"), jumping to the conclusion that a posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly influencing events. On the other hand, the "deep" conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out evidence. Rothbard describes this latter activity as a matter of confirming with certain facts one's initial paranoia.[50]

Relationship with evidence

Belief in conspiracy theories is generally based not on evidence, but in the faith of the believer.[51] Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory to institutional analysis which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or mainstream media reports.[52] Conspiracy theory conversely posits the existence of secretive coalitions of individuals and speculates on their alleged activities.[53][54] Belief in conspiracy theories is associated with biases in reasoning, such as the conjunction fallacy.[55]

Clare Birchall at King's College London describes conspiracy theory as a "form of popular knowledge or interpretation".[lower-alpha 1] The use of the word 'knowledge' here suggests ways in which conspiracy theory may be considered in relation to legitimate modes of knowing.[lower-alpha 2] The relationship between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge, Birchall claims, is closer than common dismissals of conspiracy theory contend.[57]

Theories involving multiple conspirators that are proven to be correct, such as the Watergate scandal, are usually referred to as "investigative journalism" or "historical analysis" rather than conspiracy theory.[58] By contrast, the term "Watergate conspiracy theory" is used to refer to a variety of hypotheses in which those convicted in the conspiracy were in fact the victims of a deeper conspiracy.[59]

Rhetoric

Conspiracy theory rhetoric exploits several important cognitive biases, including proportionality bias, attribution bias, and confirmation bias.[60] Conspiracy theories are most successful when proponents can gather followers from the general public, such as in politics, religion and journalism. These proponents may not necessarily believe the conspiracy theory, instead using it in an attempt to gain public approval. Conspiratorial claims can act as a successful rhetorical strategy to convince a portion of the public via appeal to emotion.[15]

Conspiracy theories typically justify themselves by focusing on gaps or ambiguities in knowledge, and then arguing that the true explanation for this must be a conspiracy.[30] In contrast, any evidence that directly supports their claims is generally of low quality. For example, conspiracy theories are often dependent on eyewitness testimony, despite its unreliability, while disregarding objective analyses of the evidence.[30]

Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[6][7] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.[8][9] The epistemic strategy of conspiracy theories has been called "cascade logic": each time new evidence becomes available, a conspiracy theory is able to dismiss it by claiming that even more people must be part of the cover-up.[15][30] Any information that contradicts the conspiracy theory is suggested to be disinformation by the alleged conspiracy.[17] Similarly, the continued lack of evidence directly supporting conspiracist claims is portrayed as confirming the existence of a conspiracy of silence; the fact that other people haven't found or exposed any conspiracy is taken as evidence that those people are part of the plot, rather than considering that it may be because no conspiracy exists.[60][30] This strategy lets conspiracy theories insulate themselves from neutral analyses of the evidence, and makes them resistant to questioning or correction, which is called "epistemic self-insulation".[60][30]

Conspiracy theorists often take advantage of false balance in the media. They may claim to be presenting a legitimate alternative viewpoint that deserves equal time to argue its case; for example, this strategy has been used by the Teach the Controversy campaign to promote intelligent design, which often claims that there is a conspiracy of scientists suppressing their views. If they successfully find a platform to present their views in a debate format, they focus on using rhetorical ad hominems and attacking perceived flaws in the mainstream account, while avoiding any discussion of the shortcomings in their own position.[15]

The typical approach of conspiracy theories is to challenge any action or statement from authorities, using even the most tenuous justifications. Responses are then assessed using a double standard, where failing to provide an immediate response to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist will be claimed to prove a conspiracy. Any minor errors in the response are heavily emphasized, while deficiencies in the arguments of other proponents are generally excused.[15]

In science, conspiracists may suggest that a scientific theory can be disproven by a single perceived deficiency, even though such events are extremely rare. In addition, both disregarding the claims and attempting to address them will be interpreted as proof of a conspiracy.[15] Other conspiracist arguments may not be scientific; for example, in response to the IPCC Second Assessment Report in 1996, much of the opposition centered on promoting a procedural objection to the report's creation. Specifically, it was claimed that part of the procedure reflected a conspiracy to silence dissenters, which served as motivation for opponents of the report and successfully redirected a significant amount of the public discussion away from the science.[15]

Conspiracism as a world view

The historian Richard Hofstadter addressed the role of paranoia and conspiracism throughout U.S. history in his 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". Bernard Bailyn's classic The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) notes that a similar phenomenon could be found in North America during the time preceding the American Revolution. Conspiracism labels people's attitudes as well as the type of conspiracy theories that are more global and historical in proportion.[61]

One of the most widely confirmed facts about conspiracy theories is that belief in a single conspiracy theory tends to promote belief in other unrelated conspiracy theories as well.[60][62] This even applies when the conspiracy theories directly contradict each other, e.g. believing that Osama bin Laden was already dead before his compound in Pakistan was attacked makes the same person more likely to believe that he is still alive. One conclusion from this finding is that the content of a conspiracist belief is less important than the idea of a coverup by the authorities.[60][63][64]

The term "conspiracism" was further popularized by academic Frank P. Mintz in the 1980s. According to Mintz, conspiracism denotes "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history":[65]:4

Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology.[65]:199

Justin Fox of Time magazine argues that Wall Street traders are among the most conspiracy-minded group of people, and ascribes this to the reality of some financial market conspiracies, and to the ability of conspiracy theories to provide necessary orientation in the market's day-to-day movements.[66]

Middle East
Main article: Conspiracy theories in the Arab world
See also: Conspiracy theories in Turkey

Conspiracy theories are a prevalent feature of Arab culture and politics.[67] Variants include conspiracies involving colonialism, Zionism, superpowers, oil, and the war on terrorism, which may be referred to as a war against Islam.[67] For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous hoax document purporting to be a Jewish plan for world domination, is commonly read and promoted in the Muslim world.[68][69][70] Roger Cohen has suggested that the popularity of conspiracy theories in the Arab world is "the ultimate refuge of the powerless".[71] Al-Mumin Said has noted the danger of such theories, for they "keep us not only from the truth but also from confronting our faults and problems".[72]

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have used conspiracy theories about the United States to gain support for al-Qaeda in the Arab world, and as rhetoric to distinguish themselves from similar groups, although they may not have believed the conspiratorial claims themselves.[73]

United States
See also: American political conspiracy theories

Harry G. West and others have noted that while conspiracy theorists may often be dismissed as a fringe minority, certain evidence suggests that a wide range of the U.S. maintains a belief in conspiracy theories. West also compares those theories to hypernationalism and religious fundamentalism.[74][75]

Theologian Robert Jewett and philosopher John Shelton Lawrence attribute the enduring popularity of conspiracy theories in the U.S. to the Cold War, McCarthyism, and counterculture rejection of authority. They state that among both the left-wing and right-wing, there remains a willingness to use real events, such as Soviet plots, inconsistencies in the Warren Report, and the 9/11 attacks, to support the existence of unverified and ongoing large-scale conspiracies.[76]

The Watergate scandal has also been used to bestow legitimacy to other conspiracy theories, with Richard Nixon himself commenting that it served as a "Rorschach ink blot" which invited others to fill in the underlying pattern.[58]

Historian Kathryn S. Olmsted cites three reasons why Americans are prone to believing in government conspiracies theories:

  1. Genuine government overreach and secrecy during the Cold War, such as Watergate, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Project MKUltra, and the CIA's collaboration with mobsters in attempting to assassinate Fidel Castro.
  2. Precedent set by official government-sanctioned conspiracy theories for propaganda, such as claims of German infiltration of the U.S. during World War II or the debunked claim that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
  3. Distrust fostered by the government's spying on and harassment of dissenters, such as the Sedition Act of 1918, COINTELPRO, and as part of various Red Scares.[77]

Consequences

Historically, conspiracy theories have been closely linked to prejudice, witch hunts, wars, and genocides.[18][15] They are often strongly believed by the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, and were used as justification by Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant, as well as by governments such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.[18] AIDS denialism by the government of South Africa, motivated by conspiracy theories, caused an estimated 330,000 deaths from AIDS,[60][78][79] while belief in conspiracy theories about genetically modified foods led the government of Zambia to reject food aid during a famine,[15] at a time when 3 million people in the country were suffering from hunger.[80]

Conspiracy theories are a significant obstacle to improvements in public health.[15][16] People who believe in health-related conspiracy theories are less likely to follow medical advice, and more likely to use alternative medicine instead.[18] Conspiratorial anti-vaccination beliefs, such as conspiracy theories about pharmaceutical companies, can result in reduced vaccination rates and have been linked to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.[60][15][81][16] Health-related conspiracy theories often inspire resistance to water fluoridation, and contributed to the impact of the Lancet MMR autism fraud.[15][16]

Conspiracy theories are a fundamental component of a wide range of radicalized and extremist groups, where they may play an important role in reinforcing the ideology and psychology of their members as well as further radicalizing their beliefs.[18][19] These conspiracy theories often share common themes, even among groups that would otherwise be fundamentally opposed, such as the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories found among political extremists on both the far right and far left.[18] More generally, belief in conspiracy theories is associated with holding extreme and uncompromising viewpoints, and may help people in maintaining those viewpoints.[17] While conspiracy theories are not always present in extremist groups, and do not always lead to violence when they are, they can make the group more extreme, provide an enemy to direct hatred towards, and isolate members from the rest of society. Conspiracy theories are most likely to inspire violence when they call for urgent action, appeal to prejudices, or demonize and scapegoat enemies.[19]

Conspiracy theorizing in the workplace can also have economic consequences. For example, it leads to lower job satisfaction and lower commitment, resulting in workers being more likely to leave their jobs.[18] Comparisons have also been made with the effects of workplace rumors, which share some characteristics with conspiracy theories and result in both decreased productivity and increased stress. Subsequent effects on managers include reduced profits, reduced trust from employees, and damage to the company's image.[18][82]

Conspiracy theories can divert attention from important social, political, and scientific issues.[83][63] In addition, they have been used to discredit scientific evidence to the general public or in a legal context. Conspiratorial strategies also share characteristics with those used by lawyers who are attempting to discredit expert testimony, such as claiming that the experts have ulterior motives in testifying, or attempting to find someone who will provide statements to imply that expert opinion is more divided than it actually is.[15]

It is possible that conspiracy theories may also produce some compensatory benefits to society in certain situations. For example, they may help people identify governmental deceptions, particularly in repressive societies, and encourage government transparency.[33][83] However, real conspiracies are normally revealed by people working within the system, such as whistleblowers and journalists, and most of the effort spent by conspiracy theorists is inherently misdirected.[19] The most dangerous conspiracy theories are likely to be those that incite violence, scapegoat disadvantaged groups, or spread misinformation about important societal issues.[84]

Interventions

The primary defense against conspiracy theories is to maintain an open society, in which many sources of reliable information are available, and government sources are known to be credible rather than propaganda. Additionally, independent nongovernmental organizations are able to correct misinformation without requiring people to trust the government.[33] Other approaches to reduce the appeal of conspiracy theories in general among the public may be based in the emotional and social nature of conspiratorial beliefs. For example, interventions that promote analytical thinking in the general public are likely to be effective. Another approach is to intervene in ways that decrease negative emotions, and specifically to improve feelings of personal hope and empowerment.[32]

Joseph Pierre, M.D. has also noted that mistrust in authoritative institutions is the core component underlying many conspiracy theories and that this mistrust creates an epistemic vacuum and makes individuals searching for answers vulnerable to misinformation. Therefore, one possible solution is offering consumers a seat at the table to mend their mistrust in institutions.[85] Regarding the challenges of this approach, Dr. Pierre has said, "The challenge with acknowledging areas of uncertainty within a public sphere is that doing so can be weaponized to reinforce a post-truth view of the world in which everything is debatable, and any counter-position is just as valid. Although I like to think of myself as a middle of the road kind of individual, it is important to keep in mind that the truth does not always lie in the middle of a debate, whether we are talking about climate change, vaccines, or antipsychotic medications."[86]

It has been suggested that directly countering misinformation can be counterproductive. For example, since conspiracy theories can reinterpret disconfirming information as part of their narrative, refuting a claim can result in accidentally reinforcing it.[30][87] In addition, publishing criticism of conspiracy theories can result in legitimizing them.[83] In this context, possible interventions include carefully selecting which conspiracy theories to refute, requesting additional analyses from independent observers, and introducing cognitive diversity into conspiratorial communities by undermining their poor epistemology.[83] Any legitimization effect might also be reduced by responding to more conspiracy theories rather than fewer.[33]

However, presenting people with factual corrections, or highlighting the logical contradictions in conspiracy theories, has been demonstrated to have a positive effect in many circumstances.[32][87] For example, this has been studied in the case of informing believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories about statements by actual experts and witnesses.[32] One possibility is that criticism is most likely to backfire if it challenges someone's worldview or identity. This suggests that an effective approach may be to provide criticism while avoiding such challenges.[87]

Psychology

The widespread belief in conspiracy theories has become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists, and experts in folklore since at least the 1960s, when a number of conspiracy theories arose regarding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Sociologist Türkay Salim Nefes underlines the political nature of conspiracy theories. He suggests that one of the most important characteristics of these accounts is their attempt to unveil the "real but hidden" power relations in social groups.[88][89]

Research suggests, on a psychological level, conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—can be harmful or pathological,[10][11] and is highly correlated with psychological projection, as well as with paranoia, which is predicted by the degree of a person's Machiavellianism.[90] The propensity to believe in conspiracy theories is strongly associated with the mental health disorder of schizotypy.[91][92][93][94][95] Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[35][36][37][38] Exposure to conspiracy theories in news media and popular entertainment increases receptiveness to conspiratorial ideas, and has also increased the social acceptability of fringe beliefs.[18][96]

Conspiracy theories often make use of complicated and detailed arguments, including ones which appear to be analytical or scientific. However, belief in conspiracy theories is primarily driven by emotion.[32] Analytical thinking aids in reducing belief in conspiracy theories, in part because it emphasizes rational and critical cognition.[17] Some psychological scientists assert that explanations related to conspiracy theories can be, and often are "internally consistent" with strong beliefs that had previously been held prior to the event that sparked the conspiracy.[17]

Attractions

Psychological motives for believing in conspiracy theories can be categorized as epistemic, existential, or social. These motives are particularly acute in vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. However, it does not appear that the beliefs help to address these motives; in fact, they may be self-defeating, acting to make the situation worse instead.[17][87] For example, while conspiratorial beliefs can result from a perceived sense of powerlessness, exposure to conspiracy theories immediately suppresses personal feelings of autonomy and control. Furthermore, they also make people less likely to take actions that could improve their circumstances.[17][87]

This is additionally supported by the fact that conspiracy theories have a number of disadvantageous attributes.[17] For example, they promote a negative and distrustful view of other people and groups, who are allegedly acting based on antisocial and cynical motivations. This is expected to lead to increased alienation and anomie, and reduced social capital. Similarly, they depict the public as ignorant and powerless against the alleged conspirators, with important aspects of society determined by malevolent forces, a viewpoint which is likely to be disempowering.[17]

Each person may endorse conspiracy theories for one of many different reasons.[97] The most consistently demonstrated characteristics of people who find conspiracy theories appealing are a feeling of alienation, unhappiness or dissatisfaction with their situation, an unconventional worldview, and a feeling of disempowerment.[97] While various aspects of personality affect susceptibility to conspiracy theories, none of the Big Five personality traits are associated with conspiracy beliefs.[97]

The political scientist Michael Barkun, discussing the usage of "conspiracy theory" in contemporary American culture, holds that this term is used for a belief that explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.[98][99] According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold:

  • "First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.
  • Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents.
  • Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions."[99]

This third point is supported by research of Roland Imhoff, professor in Social Psychology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. The research suggests that the smaller the minority believing in a specific theory, the more attractive it is to conspiracy theorists.[100]

Humanistic psychologists argue that even if a posited cabal behind an alleged conspiracy is almost always perceived as hostile, there often remains an element of reassurance for theorists. This is because it is a consolation to imagine that difficulties in human affairs are created by humans, and remain within human control. If a cabal can be implicated, there may be a hope of breaking its power or of joining it. Belief in the power of a cabal is an implicit assertion of human dignity—an unconscious affirmation that man is responsible for his own destiny.[101]

People formulate conspiracy theories to explain, for example, power relations in social groups and the perceived existence of evil forces.[lower-alpha 3][99][88][89] Proposed psychological origins of conspiracy theorising include projection; the personal need to explain "a significant event [with] a significant cause;" and the product of various kinds and stages of thought disorder, such as paranoid disposition, ranging in severity to diagnosable mental illnesses. Some people prefer socio-political explanations over the insecurity of encountering random, unpredictable, or otherwise inexplicable events.[66][102][103][104][105][71]

According to Berlet and Lyons, "Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm".[106]

Origins

Some psychologists believe that a search for meaning is common in conspiracism. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become embedded within a social group, communal reinforcement may also play a part.[107]

Inquiry into possible motives behind the accepting of irrational conspiracy theories has linked[108] these beliefs to distress resulting from an event that occurred, such as the events of 9/11. Additionally, research[109] done by Manchester Metropolitan University suggests that "delusional ideation" is the most likely condition that would indicate an elevated belief in conspiracy theories. Studies[55] also show that an increased attachment to these irrational beliefs lead to a decrease in desire for civic engagement. Belief in conspiracy theories is correlated with anxiety disorders, paranoia, and authoritarian beliefs.[110]

Professor Quassim Cassam argues that conspiracy theorists hold their beliefs due to flaws in their thinking and more precisely, their intellectual character. He cites philosopher Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski and her book Virtues of the Mind in outlining intellectual virtues (such as humility, caution and carefulness) and intellectual vices (such as gullibility, carelessness and closed-mindedness). Whereas intellectual virtues help in reaching sound examination, intellectual vices "impede effective and responsible inquiry", meaning that those who are prone to believing in conspiracy theories possess certain vices while lacking necessary virtues.[111]

Some researchers have suggested that conspiracy theories could be partially caused by psychological mechanisms the human brain possesses for detecting dangerous coalitions. Such a mechanism could have been useful in the small-scale environment humanity evolved in but are mismatched in a modern, complex society and thus "misfire", perceiving conspiracies where none exist.[112]

Projection

Some historians have argued that there is an element of psychological projection in conspiracism. This projection, according to the argument, is manifested in the form of attribution of undesirable characteristics of the self to the conspirators. Historian Richard Hofstadter stated that:

This enemy seems on many counts a projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. A fundamental paradox of the paranoid style is the imitation of the enemy. The enemy, for example, may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. ... The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through "front" groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist "crusades" openly express their admiration for the dedication, discipline, and strategic ingenuity the Communist cause calls forth.[104]

Hofstadter also noted that "sexual freedom" is a vice frequently attributed to the conspiracist's target group, noting that "very often the fantasies of true believers reveal strong sadomasochistic outlets, vividly expressed, for example, in the delight of anti-Masons with the cruelty of Masonic punishments."[104]

Sociology

In addition to psychological factors such as conspiracist ideation, sociological factors also help account for who believes in which conspiracy theories. Such theories tend to get more traction among election losers in society, for example, and the emphasis of conspiracy theories by elites and leaders tends to increase belief among followers who have higher levels of conspiracy thinking.[113]

Christopher Hitchens described conspiracy theories as the "exhaust fumes of democracy":[105] the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.

Conspiracy theories may be emotionally satisfying, by assigning blame to a group to which the theorist does not belong and so absolving the theorist of moral or political responsibility in society.[114] Likewise, Roger Cohen writing for The New York Times has said that, "captive minds; ... resort to conspiracy theory because it is the ultimate refuge of the powerless. If you cannot change your own life, it must be that some greater force controls the world."[71]

Sociological historian Holger Herwig found in studying German explanations for the origins of World War I, "Those events that are most important are hardest to understand because they attract the greatest attention from myth makers and charlatans."[115]

Influence of critical theory

French sociologist Bruno Latour suggests that the widespread popularity of conspiracy theories in mass culture may be due, in part, to the pervasive presence of Marxist-inspired critical theory and similar ideas in academia since the 1970s.[116]

Latour notes that about 90% of contemporary social criticism in academia displays one of two approaches, which he terms "the fact position and the fairy position".[116]:237

  • The "fairy position" is anti-fetishist, arguing that "objects of belief" (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts onto which power is projected; Latour contends that those who use this approach show biases towards confirming their own dogmatic suspicions as most "scientifically supported". While the complete facts of the situation and correct methodology are ostensibly important to them, Latour proposes that the scientific process is instead laid on as a patina to one's pet theories to lend a sort of reputation high ground.
  • The "fact position" argues that external forces (e.g., economics, gender) dominate individuals, often covertly and without their awareness.[116]

Latour concludes that each of these two approaches in academia has led to a polarized, inefficient atmosphere highlighted (in both approaches) by its causticness. "Do you see now why it feels so good to be a critical mind?" asks Latour: no matter which position you take, "You're always right!"[116]

Latour notes that such social criticism has been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including climate-change denialists and the 9/11 Truth movement: "Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but I am worried to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee-jerk disbelief, punctilious demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social neverland, many of the weapons of social critique."[116]

Fusion paranoia

Michael Kelly, a The Washington Post journalist and critic of anti-war movements on both the left and right, coined the term "fusion paranoia" to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he said were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or shared anti-government views.[117]

Barkun has adopted this term to refer to how the synthesis of paranoid conspiracy theories, which were once limited to American fringe audiences, has given them mass appeal and enabled them to become commonplace in mass media,[118] thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic or millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[119] Barkun notes the occurrence of lone-wolf conflicts with law enforcement acting as proxy for threatening the established political powers.[120]

Viability

The physicist David Robert Grimes estimated the time it would take for a conspiracy to be exposed based on the number of people involved.[121][122] His calculations used data from the PRISM surveillance program, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and the FBI forensic scandal. Grimes estimated that:

  • A Moon landing hoax would require the involvement of 411,000 people and would be exposed within 3.68 years;
  • Climate-change fraud would require a minimum of 29,083 people (published climate scientists only) and would be exposed within 26.77 years, or up to 405,000 people, in which case it would be exposed within 3.70 years;
  • A vaccination conspiracy would require a minimum of 22,000 people (without drug companies) and would be exposed within at least 3.15 years and at most 34.78 years depending on the number involved;
  • A conspiracy to suppress a cure for cancer would require 714,000 people and would be exposed within 3.17 years.

Politics

The philosopher Karl Popper described the central problem of conspiracy theories as a form of fundamental attribution error, where every event is generally perceived as being intentional and planned, greatly underestimating the effects of randomness and unintended consequences.[63] In his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, he used the term "the conspiracy theory of society" to denote the idea that social phenomena such as "war, unemployment, poverty, shortages ... [are] the result of direct design by some powerful individuals and groups."[123] Popper argued that totalitarianism was founded on conspiracy theories which drew on imaginary plots which were driven by paranoid scenarios predicated on tribalism, chauvinism, or racism. He also noted that conspirators very rarely achieved their goal.[124]

Historically, when real conspiracies have occurred they have usually had little effect on history and have had unforeseen consequences for the conspirators. As described by Bruce Cumings, history is instead "moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities".[125]

Alex Jones referenced numerous conspiracy theories for convincing his supporters to endorse Ron Paul over Mitt Romney in the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries and Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election.[126]

See also

References

Informational notes

  1. Birchall 2006: "[W]e can appreciate conspiracy theory as a unique form of popular knowledge or interpretation, and address what this might mean for any knowledge we produce about it or how we interpret it."[56]:66
  2. Birchall 2006: "What we quickly discover ... is that it becomes impossible to map conspiracy theory and academic discourse onto a clear illegitimate/legitimate divide."[56]:72
  3. Barkun 2003: "The essence of conspiracy beliefs lies in attempts to delineate and explain evil. At their broadest, conspiracy theories 'view history as controlled by massive, demonic forces.' ... For our purposes, a conspiracy belief is the belief that an organization made up of individuals or groups was or is acting covertly to achieve a malevolent end."[98]

Citations

  1. Issitt, Micah; Main, Carlyn (2014). Hidden Religion: The Greatest Mysteries and Symbols of the World's Religious Beliefs. ABC-CLIO. pp. 47–49. ISBN 978-1-61069-478-0.
  2. Goertzel, T (December 1994). "Belief in conspiracy theories". Political Psychology. 15 (4): 731–742. doi:10.2307/3791630. JSTOR 3791630. "explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups"
  3. "conspiracy theory". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event"
  4. Brotherton, Robert; French, Christopher C.; Pickering, Alan D. (2013). "Measuring Belief in Conspiracy Theories: The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale". Frontiers in Psychology. 4: 279. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 3659314. PMID 23734136. S2CID 16685781. A conspiracist belief can be described as 'the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable'.
  5. Additional sources:
  6. Byford, Jovan (2011). Conspiracy theories : a critical introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230349216. OCLC 802867724.
  7. Keeley, Brian L. (March 1999). "Of Conspiracy Theories". The Journal of Philosophy. 96 (3): 109–126. doi:10.2307/2564659. JSTOR 2564659.
  8. Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 3–4.
  9. Barkun, Michael (2011). Chasing Phantoms: Reality, Imagination, and Homeland Security Since 9/11. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 10.
  10. Freeman, Daniel; Bentall, Richard P. (29 March 2017). "The concomitants of conspiracy concerns". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 52 (5): 595–604. doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1354-4. ISSN 0933-7954. PMC 5423964. PMID 28352955.
  11. Barron, David; Morgan, Kevin; Towell, Tony; Altemeyer, Boris; Swami, Viren (November 2014). "Associations between schizotypy and belief in conspiracist ideation" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 70: 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.040.
  12. Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M. (12 April 2011). "Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire" (PDF). British Journal of Social Psychology. 10 (3): 544–552. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x. PMID 21486312. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 November 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018.
  13. Dean, Signe (23 October 2017). "Conspiracy Theorists Really Do See The World Differently, New Study Shows". Science Alert. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
  14. Sloat, Sarah (17 October 2017). "Conspiracy Theorists Have a Fundamental Cognitive Problem, Say Scientists". Inverse. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
  15. Goertzel, Ted (2010). "Conspiracy theories in science". EMBO Reports. 11 (7): 493–499. doi:10.1038/embor.2010.84. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 2897118. PMID 20539311.
  16. Glick, Michael; Booth, H. Austin (2014). "Conspiracy ideation". The Journal of the American Dental Association. 145 (8): 798–799. doi:10.1016/S0002-8177(14)60181-1. ISSN 0002-8177. PMID 25082925.
  17. Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M.; Cichocka, Aleksandra (1 December 2017). "The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 26 (6): 538–542. doi:10.1177/0963721417718261. ISSN 0963-7214. PMC 5724570. PMID 29276345.
  18. Douglas, Karen M.; Uscinski, Joseph E.; Sutton, Robbie M.; Cichocka, Aleksandra; Nefes, Turkay; Ang, Chee Siang; Deravi, Farzin (2019). "Understanding Conspiracy Theories". Political Psychology. 40 (S1): 3–35. doi:10.1111/pops.12568. ISSN 0162-895X.
  19. Robert Brotherton (19 November 2015). "Chapter 2". Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4729-1564-1.
  20. Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0), Oxford University Press, 2009, s.v. 4
  21. Johnson, Allen (July 1909). "Reviewed Work: The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise: Its Origin and Authorship by P. Orman Ray". The American Historical Review. 14 (4): 835–836. doi:10.2307/1837085. hdl:2027/loc.ark:/13960/t27948c87. JSTOR 1837085. The claim that [David R.] Atchison was the originator of the [Missouri Compromise] repeal may be termed a recrudescence of the conspiracy theory first asserted by Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia in 1880.
  22. Robertson, Lockhart; Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England); Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland; Royal Medico-psychological Association (April 1870). Maudsley, Henry; Sibbald, John (eds.). "The Report of a Quarterly Meeting of the Medico-Psychological Association, held in London at the Royal Medico-Chirurgical Society, by permission of the President and Council, on the 27th January, 1870. [in Part IV. Psychological News.]". The Journal of Mental Science. London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts. XVI (73). ISSN 0368-315X. OCLC 4642826321. The theory of Dr. Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Reade, and the precautionary measure suggested by Dr. Sankey of using a padded waistcoat in recent cases of mania with general paralysis—in which mental condition nearly all these cases under discussion were—seemed to him of practical value.
  23. Blaskiewicz, Robert (8 August 2013). "Nope, It Was Always Already Wrong". The Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Archived from the original on 12 December 2015. Retrieved 11 December 2015.
  24. McKenzie-McHarg, Andrew (2019) "Conspiracy Theory: The Nineteenth-Century Prehistory of a Twentieth-Century Concept," pp. 78, 76. In Joseph E. Uscinski (ed) Conspiracy Theories & the People Who Believe Them. New York: Oxford University Press.
  25. Robert Brotherton (19 November 2015). "Chapter 4". Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4729-1564-1.
  26. deHaven-Smith, Lance (15 April 2013). Conspiracy Theory in America. p. 3. ISBN 9780292743793. Archived from the original on 6 September 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2016. The term "conspiracy theory" did not exist as a phrase in everyday American conversation before 1964. ... In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, The New York Times published five stories in which "conspiracy theory" appeared.
  27. Butter, Michael (16 March 2020). "There's a conspiracy theory that the CIA invented the term 'conspiracy theory' – here's why". The Conversation. The Conversation Trust (UK) Limited. Retrieved 23 November 2020.
  28. Barkun, Michael (2016). "Conspiracy Theories as Stigmatized Knowledge". Diogenes: 039219211666928. doi:10.1177/0392192116669288.
  29. Brotherton, Robert (2013). "Towards a definition of 'conspiracy theory'" (PDF). PsyPAG Quarterly. 88: 9–14. A conspiracy theory is not merely one candidate explanation among other equally plausible alternatives. Rather, the label refers to a claim which runs counter to a more plausible and widely accepted account...[Conspiratorial beliefs are] invariably at odds with the mainstream consensus among scientists, historians, or other legitimate judges of the claim's veracity.
  30. Brotherton, Robert (2013). "Towards a definition of 'conspiracy theory'" (PDF). PsyPAG Quarterly. 88: 9–14.
  31. "History's greatest conspiracy theories". The Daily Telegraph. 12 November 2008. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
  32. van Prooijen, Jan-Willem; Douglas, Karen M. (2018). "Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain". European Journal of Social Psychology. 48 (7): 897–908. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2530. ISSN 0046-2772. PMC 6282974. PMID 30555188.
  33. Sunstein, Cass R.; Vermeule, Adrian (2009). "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures". Journal of Political Philosophy. 17 (2): 202–227. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x. ISSN 0963-8016.
  34. J. Byford (12 October 2011). Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Springer. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0-230-34921-6.
  35. Barkun 2003, p. 58.
  36. Camp, Gregory S. (1997). Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Commish Walsh. ASIN B000J0N8NC.
  37. Goldberg, Robert Alan (2001). Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-09000-0. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
  38. Fenster, Mark (2008). Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. University of Minnesota Press; 2nd edition. ISBN 978-0-8166-5494-9.
  39. Adam M. Enders, "Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Constraint." Public Opinion Quarterly 83.3 (2019): 510–533.
  40. Robert Brotherton (19 November 2015). "Introduction". Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4729-1564-1.
  41. West, Harry G.; Sanders, Todd (2003). Transparency and conspiracy: ethnographies of suspicion in the new world order. Duke University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-8223-3024-0. Archived from the original on 22 January 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  42. Kahn, Brian (2 November 2017). "There's a Damn Good Chance Your Neighbor Thinks Chemtrails Are Real". Gizmodo Earther. Archived from the original on 7 March 2019. Retrieved 5 March 2019.
  43. Wood, M. (2015). "Has the Internet been good for conspiracy theorising?" (PDF). Psychology Postgraduate Affairs Group (PsyPAG) Quarterly (88): 31–33. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 August 2015. Retrieved 12 September 2015.
  44. Ballatore, A. (2015). "Google chemtrails: A methodology to analyze topic representation in search engine results". First Monday. 20 (7). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i7.5597. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 12 September 2015.
  45. Enders, Adam M.; Smallpage, Steven M.; Lupton, Robert N. (9 July 2018). "Are All 'Birthers' Conspiracy Theorists? On the Relationship Between Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Orientations". British Journal of Political Science. 50 (3): 849–866. doi:10.1017/s0007123417000837. ISSN 0007-1234.
  46. Sweek, Joel (October 2006). "Michael Barkun, . A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. xii+243 pp. $24.95 (cloth)". The Journal of Religion. 86 (4): 691–692. doi:10.1086/509680. ISSN 0022-4189.
  47. News, Albert R. Hunt | Bloomberg (3 April 2011). "Republicans Ride Theories of the Fringe". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 8 April 2011. Retrieved 23 April 2020.
  48. Jesse Walker, The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory (2013) excerpt and text search Archived 12 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine
  49. Barkun 2003, p. 6.
  50. As quoted by B.K. Marcus in "Radio Free Rothbard Archived 17 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol 20, No 2. (SPRING 2006): pp 17–51. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
  51. Barkun 2003, p. 7.
  52. Achbar, Mark, ed. (1994). Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. Black Rose Books Ltd. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-55164-002-0.
  53. Jack Z. Bratich (7 February 2008). Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture. State University of New York Press, Albany. pp. 98–100. ISBN 9780791473344. Archived from the original on 18 April 2019. Retrieved 16 June 2015.
  54. Jovan Byford (12 October 2011). Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 25–27. ISBN 9780230349216. Archived from the original on 25 January 2014. Retrieved 16 June 2015.
  55. Brotherton, Robert; French, Christopher C. (2014). "Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 28 (2): 238–248. doi:10.1002/acp.2995. ISSN 0888-4080.
  56. Birchall, Clare (2006). "Cultural studies on/as conspiracy theory". In Birchall, Clare (ed.). Knowledge goes pop from conspiracy theory to gossip. Oxford, New York: Berg. ISBN 978-1-84520-143-2.
  57. Birchall, Clare (2004). "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you". Culture Machine, Deconstruction Is/In Cultural Studies. 6. Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 11 March 2015.
  58. Peter Knight (1 January 2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 730–. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9. Archived from the original on 6 September 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2016.
  59. Ron Rosenbaum (2012). "Ah, Watergate". New Republic. Archived from the original on 6 August 2016. Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  60. Thresher-Andrews, Christopher (2013). "An introduction into the world of conspiracy" (PDF). PsyPAG Quarterly. 88: 5–8.
  61. Bailyn, Bernard (1992) [1967]. 'The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-44302-0. ASIN: B000NUF6FQ.
  62. Sutton, Robbie M; Douglas, Karen M (2020). "Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset: implications for political ideology". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 34: 118–122. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.02.015. ISSN 2352-1546. S2CID 214735855.
  63. Linden, Sander van der (30 April 2013). "Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories". Scientific American. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
  64. Michal Bilewicz; Aleksandra Cichocka; Wiktor Soral (15 May 2015). The Psychology of Conspiracy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-59952-4.
  65. Mintz, Frank P. (1985). The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, and Culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-24393-6.
  66. Justin Fox: "Wall Streeters like conspiracy theories. Always have" Archived 26 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Time, 1 October 2009.
  67. Matthew Gray (2010). Conspiracy Theories in the Arab World. ISBN 978-0-415-57518-8.
  68. Wakin, Daniel J. (26 October 2002). "Anti-Semitic 'Elders of Zion' Gets New Life on Egypt TV". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 16 August 2014. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
  69. "2006 Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 August 2006. Report by Center for Religious Freedom of Freedom House. 2006
  70. "The Booksellers of Tehran" Archived 10 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal, 28 October 2005
  71. Cohen, Roger (20 December 2010). "The Captive Arab Mind". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 25 June 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2017.
  72. Steven Stalinsky (6 May 2004). "A Vast Conspiracy". National Review. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013.
  73. Matthew Gray (12 July 2010). Conspiracy Theories in the Arab World: Sources and Politics. Routledge. pp. 158–159. ISBN 978-1-136-96751-1.
  74. Harry G. West; et al. Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order. Duke University Press Books. pp. 4, 207–08.
  75. Shermer, Michael, and Pat Linse. Conspiracy Theories. Altadena, CA: Skeptics Society, n.d. Print.
  76. Jewett, Robert; John Shelton Lawrence (2004) Captain America and the crusade against evil: the dilemma of zealous nationalism Archived 18 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing p. 206.
  77. Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2011) Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 Archived 18 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine, Oxford University Press, p. 8.
  78. Simelela, Nono; Venter, W. D. Francois; Pillay, Yogan; Barron, Peter (2015). "A Political and Social History of HIV in South Africa". Current HIV/AIDS Reports. 12 (2): 256–261. doi:10.1007/s11904-015-0259-7. ISSN 1548-3568. PMID 25929959. S2CID 23483038.
  79. Burton, Rosie; Giddy, Janet; Stinson, Kathryn (2015). "Prevention of mother-to-child transmission in South Africa: an ever-changing landscape". Obstetric Medicine. 8 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1177/1753495X15570994. ISSN 1753-495X. PMC 4934997. PMID 27512452.
  80. Dominique Brossard; James Shanahan; T. Clint Nesbitt (2007). The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology. CABI. pp. 343, 353. ISBN 978-1-84593-204-6.
  81. Prematunge, Chatura; Corace, Kimberly; McCarthy, Anne; Nair, Rama C.; Pugsley, Renee; Garber, Gary (2012). "Factors influencing pandemic influenza vaccination of healthcare workers—A systematic review". Vaccine. 30 (32): 4733–4743. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.018. ISSN 0264-410X. PMID 22643216.
  82. DiFonzo, Nicholas; Bordia, Prashant; Rosnow, Ralph L. (1994). "Reining in rumors". Organizational Dynamics. 23 (1): 47–62. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(94)90087-6. ISSN 0090-2616.
  83. Jolley, Daniel (2013). "The detrimental nature of conspiracy theories" (PDF). PsyPAG Quarterly. 88: 35–39.
  84. Robert Brotherton (19 November 2015). "Epilogue". Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4729-1564-1.
  85. Pierre, JM (2020). "Mistrust and misinformation: A two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories". J Soc Polit Psychol. 8 (2): 617–641. doi:10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1362.
  86. Aftab, Awais (2021). "There and Back Again: Joseph Pierre, M.D." Psychiatric Times. 38 (1).
  87. Moyer, Melinda Wenner (1 March 2019). "People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features". Scientific American. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
  88. Nefes, Türkay S (2013). "Political parties' perceptions and uses of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Turkey". The Sociological Review. 61 (2): 247–264. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.12016. S2CID 145632390.
  89. Nefes, Türkay S. (2012). "The History of the Social Constructions of Dönmes (Converts)*". Journal of Historical Sociology. 25 (3): 413–439. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6443.2012.01434.x.
  90. Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M. (12 April 2011). "Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire" (PDF). British Journal of Social Psychology. 10 (3): 544–552. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x. PMID 21486312. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 November 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018.
  91. Barron, David; Furnham, Adrian; Weis, Laura; Morgan, Kevin D.; Towell, Tony; Swami, Viren (January 2018). "The relationship between schizotypal facets and conspiracist beliefs via cognitive processes" (PDF). Psychiatry Research. 259: 15–20. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2017.10.001. ISSN 1872-7123. PMID 29024855. S2CID 43823184.
  92. Darwin, Hannah; Neave, Nick; Holmes, Joni (1 June 2011). "Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy". Personality and Individual Differences. 50 (8): 1289–1293. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.027. ISSN 0191-8869.
  93. Barron, David; Morgan, Kevin; Towell, Tony; Altemeyer, Boris; Swami, Viren (1 November 2014). "Associations between schizotypy and belief in conspiracist ideation" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 70: 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.040. ISSN 0191-8869.
  94. D, Barron; A, Furnham; L, Weis; Kd, Morgan; T, Towell; V, Swami (January 2018). "The Relationship Between Schizotypal Facets and Conspiracist Beliefs via Cognitive Processes". PMID 29024855. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  95. Dagnall, Neil; Drinkwater, Kenneth; Parker, Andrew; Denovan, Andrew; Parton, Megan (2015). "Conspiracy theory and cognitive style: a worldview". Frontiers in Psychology. 6: 206. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00206. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 4340140. PMID 25762969.
  96. Stojanov, Ana; Halberstadt, Jamin (2020). "Does lack of control lead to conspiracy beliefs? A meta‐analysis". European Journal of Social Psychology. 50 (5): 955–968. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2690. ISSN 0046-2772.
  97. Goreis, Andreas; Voracek, Martin (2019). "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs: Field Characteristics, Measurement Instruments, and Associations With Personality Traits". Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 205. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 6396711. PMID 30853921.
  98. Barkun 2003, p. 3.
  99. Berlet, Chip (September 2004). "Interview: Michael Barkun". Archived from the original on 2 April 2009. Retrieved 1 October 2009. The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter. I don't accept this, although I certainly acknowledge that there have been conspiracies. They simply don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracists attribute to them. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  100. Imhoff, Roland (17 April 2018). "Conspiracy Theorists Just Want to Feel Special". motherboard.vice.com. Archived from the original on 28 April 2019. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
  101. Baigent, Michael; Leigh, Richard; Lincoln, Henry (1987). The Messianic Legacy. Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 978-0-8050-0568-4.
  102. Goertzel (1994). "Belief in Conspiracy Theories". Political Psychology. 15 (4): 731–742. doi:10.2307/3791630. JSTOR 3791630. Archived from the original on 31 August 2006. Retrieved 7 August 2006.
  103. Douglas, Karen; Sutton, Robbie (2008). "The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana". Journal of Social Psychology. 148 (2): 210–22. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.2.210-222. PMID 18512419. S2CID 8717161.
  104. Hofstadter, Richard (1965). The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 32–33. ISBN 978-0-674-65461-7. Archived from the original on 18 April 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2018.
  105. Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008). Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-18408-0.
  106. Berlet, Chip; Lyons, Matthew N. (2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-57230-562-5. Archived from the original on 16 December 2019. Retrieved 9 November 2019.
  107. Swami, Viren; Coles, Rebecca; Stieger, Stefan; Pietschnig, Jakob; Furnham, Adrian; Rehim, Sherry; Voracek, Martin (2011). "Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy theories". British Journal of Psychology. 102 (3): 443–463. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02004.x. ISSN 2044-8295. PMID 21751999.
  108. van Prooijen, Jan-Willem; Jostmann, Nils B. (17 December 2012). "Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality". European Journal of Social Psychology. 43 (1): 109–115. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1922. ISSN 0046-2772.
  109. Dagnall, Neil; Drinkwater, Kenneth; Parker, Andrew; Denovan, Andrew; Parton, Megan (2015). "Conspiracy theory and cognitive style: a worldview". Frontiers in Psychology. 6: 206. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00206. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 4340140. PMID 25762969.
  110. Bullock, John G.; Lenz, Gabriel (11 May 2019). "Partisan Bias in Surveys". Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 325–342. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904. ISSN 1094-2939.
  111. Cassam, Quassim (13 March 2015). "Bad Thinkers". Aeon.
  112. van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, and Van Vugt, Mark (2018) "Conspiracy theories: Evolved functions and psychological mechanisms" Perspectives on Psychological Science v.13, n.6, pp.770-788
  113. Uscinski, Joseph E. (2 July 2019). "Conspiring for the Common Good". Skeptical Inquirer. Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original on 2 April 2020. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
  114. Vedantam, Shankar (5 June 2006). "Born With the Desire to Know the Unknown". The Washington Post. p. A02. Archived from the original on 1 May 2011. Retrieved 7 June 2006. Sociologist Theodore Sasson has remarked, "Conspiracy theories explain disturbing events or social phenomena in terms of the actions of specific, powerful individuals. By providing simple explanations of distressing events—the conspiracy theory in the Arab world, for example, that the 11 September attacks were planned by the Israeli Mossad—they deflect responsibility or keep people from acknowledging that tragic events sometimes happen inexplicably."
  115. Wilson, Keith (1 November 1996). Forging the Collective Memory: Government and International Historians through Two World Wars. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-78238-828-9.
  116. Latour, Bruno (Winter 2004), "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern." (PDF), Critical Inquiry, 30 (2): 225–48, doi:10.1086/421123, S2CID 159523434, archived (PDF) from the original on 16 September 2012, retrieved 16 September 2012
  117. Kelly, Michael (12 June 1995). "THE ROAD TO PARANOIA". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Archived from the original on 9 April 2018. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
  118. Barkun 2003, p. 230.
  119. Barkun 2003, pp. 207, 210, 211.
  120. Barkun 2003, pp. 193, 197.
  121. Barajas, Joshua (15 February 2016). "How many people does it take to keep a conspiracy alive?". PBS NEWSHOUR. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Archived from the original on 13 October 2017. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
  122. Grimes, David R (26 January 2016). "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs". PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0147905. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1147905G. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147905. PMC 4728076. PMID 26812482.
  123. Popper, Karl (1945). "14". Open Society and Its Enemies, Book II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  124. "Extracts from "The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume 2: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath" by Karl Raimund Popper (Originally published 1945)". Lachlan Cranswick, quoting Karl Raimund Popper. Archived from the original on 3 September 2006. Retrieved 5 September 2006.
  125. Cumings, Bruce (1999). The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. II, The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947–1950. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  126. Friedersdorf, Conor (29 October 2011). "Ron Paul, Conspiracy Theories, and the Right". The Atlantic. Retrieved 30 August 2020.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.