Positive contact with diverse groups can reduce belief in conspiracy theories about them

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

New research has shown that having positive contact with people from diverse groups can reduce the development of harmful intergroup conspiracy beliefs.

Experts from the University of Nottingham’s School of Psychology, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia, found that among British participants, positive intergroup contact interfered with the development of conspiracy theories about other groups. The findings have been published today in the European Journal of Social Psychology.

Social psychologist Dr Daniel Jolley from the University of Nottingham led the research and explains: “Intergroup conspiracy theories are common and potentially can lead to everything from misinformed voting to extreme expressions of prejudice. Seeking ways to reduce conspiracy theories is of particular importance.”

Three studies were conducted with over 1,000 people, where the team explored whether positive intergroup contact interferes with the development of conspiracy theories about other social groups.

The first two studies explored relationships, where British participants were asked about their experience of contact with immigrants (Study 1) or Jewish people (Study 2) and their belief in conspiracy theories in relation to them. In the third study, participants were asked to think about a positive contact experience with a Jewish person and then report their conspiracy beliefs held about this group. Participants also reported their feelings (prejudice) towards the target group in each study.

The research demonstrated that those people who had experienced higher quality positive contact with Jewish people or immigrants or imagined a positive contact experience were less likely to believe conspiracy theories about them. Importantly, these effects remained even when accounting for (negative) feelings towards the target group, demonstrating that the effect is not merely another prejudice reduction effect.

Dr Jolley explains: “The research findings offer a promising potential starting point for developing tools to bring diverse groups of people together who may not usually have contact and try to foster positive conversations to help reduce potentially harmful conspiracy theories from taking hold.

“Whilst the problems are often very complex, and positive contact will not solve all the issues surrounding conspiracy theories towards certain groups, the fact that this work offers a potential tool to reduce intergroup conspiracy theories is a notable breakthrough. Our work offers a framework that, along with future research, might lead to the reduction of conspiracy beliefs in the general population”.

---

JOURNAL

European Journal of Social Psychology

DOI

10.1002/ejsp.2973 

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

More than a prejudice reduction effect: Positive intergroup contact reduces conspiracy theory beliefs

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

16-Jul-2023

How positive contact with diverse groups reduces conspiracy theories

Peer reviewed – survey - humans

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

Having positive interactions with people from diverse groups can reduce the amount of harmful conspiracy beliefs about those groups – according to new research from UEA.

Conspiracy theories about minority groups are common and can potentially lead to everything from misinformed voting to extreme expressions of prejudice.

But a new study published today reveals that bringing people from diverse backgrounds together can reduce the endorsement and tolerance of conspiracy theories.

The team say that their findings could help educators and policy makers create a more harmonious society.  

Dr Charles Seger, from UEA’s School of Psychology, said: “Some conspiracy beliefs are about things like the moon landing, or more seriously about things like the nature and effectiveness of vaccines. 

“We know from past research that simply being exposed to conspiracy beliefs, even without endorsing them, can have detrimental effects, such as a decreased willingness to engage in politics.

“But a lot of conspiracy beliefs are about groups of people. Specifically, people often have conspiracy beliefs about disadvantaged or minority groups such as Jewish people or immigrants.

“These beliefs can take the form of believing that these groups of people are involved in secret plots and schemes or are attempting to harm the fabric of society at large. 

“These sorts of conspiracy beliefs are associated with increased prejudice towards those groups, and it can be argued that intergroup violence and genocide are fuelled by unwarranted conspiracy beliefs.

“We wanted to find out whether friendly interactions with other groups of people can reduce conspiracy beliefs.”

The research team carried out three studies with more than 1,000 people. They explored whether positive inter-group contact helps combat conspiracy theories about other social groups.

The first two studies explored relationships, where British participants were asked about their experience of contact with immigrants or Jewish people and their belief in conspiracy theories in relation to them.

In a third study, participants were asked to think about a positive contact experience with a Jewish person and then report their conspiracy beliefs held about this group. Participants also reported their feelings of prejudice towards the target group in each study.

Dr Seger said: “We found that people who had experienced friendly interactions with Jewish people or immigrants, or even imagined a positive contact experience, were less likely to believe conspiracy theories about them.

“Importantly, these effects remained even beyond the prejudice reducing effects we know such interactions to have.  

“Conspiracy theories seem to be escalating in society, perhaps due to social media There are complex reasons for why people believe conspiracy theories about different groups, and conspiracy theories are notoriously hard to correct.

“Providing accurate information often does not work. Therefore, it is exciting that this intervention shows promise in reducing conspiracy beliefs.  

“Our research suggests that bringing people from diverse backgrounds together can reduce the endorsement and tolerance of conspiracy theories.

“This could be used as a useful tool for educators, policy makers, and those invested in promoting a more harmonious society.  

Dr Daniel Jolley, from the University of Nottingham, said: “The research findings offer a promising potential starting point for developing tools to bring diverse groups of people together who may not usually have contact and try to foster positive conversations to help reduce potentially harmful conspiracy theories from taking hold.

“Whilst the problems are often very complex, and positive contact will not solve all the issues surrounding conspiracy theories towards certain groups, the fact that this work offers a potential tool to reduce intergroup conspiracy theories is a notable breakthrough.

“Our work offers a framework that, along with future research, might lead to the reduction of conspiracy beliefs in the general population,” he added.

This research was led by the University of Nottingham in collaboration with UEA.

More than a prejudice reduction effect: Positive intergroup contact reduces conspiracy theory beliefs’ is published in the European Journal of Social Psychology.

---

JOURNAL

European Journal of Social Psychology

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Survey

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

More than a prejudice reduction effect: Positive intergroup contact reduces conspiracy theory beliefs

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

17-Jul-2023

A psychologist explains why people cling to conspiracy theories during uncertain times

John M. Grohol, Psych Central

Conspiracy theories blaming 5G for the coronavirus have exploded online. Cindy Ord/Getty Images

Conspiracy theories frequently surface after traumatic events and during times of uncertainty, such as in the aftermath of mass shootings or during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Far-fetched theories can spread rapidly online and via social media. Recently, a study indicated that nearly one third of Americans believe in a conspiracy theory about the coronavirus, such as one that claims the outbreak is linked to 5G internet.

Dr. John Grohol, a psychologist and the founder of Psych Central, says that conspiracy theorists come up with ideas out of thin air to match whatever 'fact' they think is true, and often use paranoia-based beliefs to convince others.

He says that these people tend to be uncooperative, distrustful, and socially isolated — which is why believing in a conspiracy theory with strangers on the internet can give them a sense of belonging.

Conspiracy theories are as old as time, but it's only in more recent years that psychologists have begun to unravel the belief that some people have in them. According to researcher Goertzel (1994), conspiracy theories are explanations that refer to hidden groups working in secret to achieve sinister objectives.

Dr. John Grohol. Courtesy of John Grohol

Whether it's the killing of a US President (Kennedy), a mass-shooting involving a seemingly-normal older white, adult male (Las Vegas), or the Charlie Hebdo murders, conspiracy theories are never far behind. Even climate change has a conspiracy theory attached to it (the US government is to blame, naturally).

What drives people's belief in these "out there" explanations for significant events? Let's find out.

There is a conspiracy theory that there were two shooters at the Las Vegas massacre, the largest mass-shooting in modern US history. The theory — believed by tens of thousands of people around the world — rests on the "evidence" of two grainy, hard-to-hear videos from eyewitnesses. These videos suggest that somehow a second shooter was able to shoot from the 4th floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel — despite the fact that there were no broken windows on the 4th floor, and police searching the building floor-by-floor heard no such shots.1

What is the purpose of the second shooter? As proof that the official narrative is false, as the second shooter points to some "new world order" plot that is intent on taking over our government and society. Or something like that. The rationale for a second shooter requires a suspension of your belief in reality and simple critical thinking.
The psychology behind conspiracy theories

Researchers have been hard at work examining why a small minority of the population believe, and even thrive, on conspiracy theories.

Lantian et al. (2017) summarize the characteristics associated with a person who is likely to believe in conspiracy theories:

… personality traits such as openness to experience, distrust, low agreeability, and Machiavellianism are associated with conspiracy belief.

"Low agreeability" refers to a trait of "agreeableness," which psychologists define as how much an individual is dependable, kind, and cooperative. Someone with low agreeability is an individual who is usually not very dependable, kind, or cooperative. Machiavellianism refers to a personality trait where a person is so "focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals."

Lantian et al. (2017) continue:

In terms of cognitive processes, people with stronger conspiracy beliefs are more likely to overestimate the likelihood of co-occurring events, to attribute intentionality where it is unlikely to exist, and to have lower levels of analytic thinking.

None of this should be surprising, because once you start to analyze a situation with demonstrable facts, it usually — and quite thoroughly — will break down the conspiracy theory into its component parts, none of which make sense standing on their own. For example, with zero evidence, conspiracy theorists need to invent a reason for a second shooter in Las Vegas, to match what they see as "facts." But once a person starts inventing a narrative out of thin air, you can see very little critical thinking occurring.

Conspiracy theories make a person feel special

Lantian et al.'s (2017) research examined the role of a person's 'need for uniqueness' and a belief of conspiracy theories, and found a correlation.

We argue that people high in need for uniqueness should be more likely than others to endorse conspiracy beliefs because conspiracy theories represent the possession of unconventional and potentially scarce information. […] Moreover, conspiracy theories rely on narratives that refer to secret knowledge (Mason, 2002) or information, which, by definition, is not accessible to everyone, otherwise it would not be a secret and it would be a well-known fact.

People who believe in conspiracy theories can feel "special," in a positive sense, because they may feel that they are more informed than others about important social and political events. […]

Our findings can also be connected to recent research demonstrating that individual narcissism, or a grandiose idea of the self, is positively related to belief in conspiracy theories. Interestingly, Cichocka et al. (2016) found that paranoid thought mediates the relationship between individual narcissism and conspiracy beliefs.

The current work suggests, however, that need for uniqueness could be an additional mediator of this relationship. Indeed, previous work has shown that narcissism is positively correlated with need for uniqueness (Emmons, 1984) and here we showed that need for uniqueness is related to conspiracy belief.
People who believe in conspiracy theories are likely more alienated and socially isolated

Moulding et al. (2016) also dug into the characteristics of people who believe in conspiracy theories in two studies.

It has been noted that individuals who endorse conspiracy theories are likely to be higher in powerlessness, social isolation, and 'anomia,' which is broadly defined as a subjective disengagement from social norms.

Such disengagement from the normative social order may result in greater conspiratorial thinking for a number of related reasons. First, individuals who feel alienated may consequently reject conventional explanations of events, as they reject the legitimacy of the source of these explanations. Due to these individuals feeling alienated from their peers, they may also turn to conspiracist groups for a sense of belonging and community, or to marginalized subcultures in which conspiracy theories are potentially more rife.

People who feel powerless may also endorse conspiracy theories as they also help the individual avoid blame for their predicament. In this sense, conspiracy theories give a sense of meaning, security and control over an unpredictable and dangerous world. Finally, and most simply, conspiracy beliefs — which imply a level of Machiavellianism and power enacted by those without fixed morality — are most likely to resonate with people who feel powerless and believe that society lacks norms.

The Internet has amplified the abilities of these like-minded people to come together to share and expand on their conspiracy theories. It took only hours after the Las Vegas massacre for a conspiracy Facebook group to appear with more than 5,000 members.

In their study, Moulding et al. (2016) found that, consistent with their hypotheses, "endorsement of conspiracy theories related moderately-to-strongly with the alienation-related variables — isolation, powerlessness, normlessness, and disengagement from social norms."

Researcher van Prooijen (2016) also found that self-esteem instability resulting in self-uncertainty also is a characteristic associated with a greater likelihood to believe in conspiracy theories. People who don't feel like they belong to any one group — a trait psychologists refer to as 'belongingness' — are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are driven by people, not facts

You can't really argue with people who believe in conspiracy theories, because their beliefs aren't rational. Instead, they are often fear- or paranoia-based beliefs that, when confronted with contrarian factual evidence, will dismiss both the evidence and the messenger who brings it.2 That's because conspiracy theories are driven by the people who believe and spread them and their own psychological makeup — not on the factual support or logical reasoning of the theory itself.

Conspiracy theories aren't going away, for as long as there are people who have a need to believe in them, they will continue to expand and thrive. The Internet and social media sites such as Facebook have only made such theories even easier to spread. Save your breath arguing with people who believe in them, as no amount of facts will dissuade them from their false belief.

Footnotes:
The conspiracy theorists apparently don't realize that all of Mandalay Bay's windows do not open, like in most Vegas hotels. If there was no broken window, there was no way a person could shoot from the 4th floor. And independent police departments as well as individual officers and first-responders suddenly become a part of the whole government conspiracy. [↩]
"Fake news" they'll say, as though that is a rational, mature, and cohesive argument in reply. [↩]


John M. Grohol, PsyD, is the founder and editor-in-chief of PsychCentral.com, a mental health and human behavior technology expert, coauthor of Self-Help That Works, and a published researcher. He sits on the scientific board of the journal, Computers in Human Behavior, and is a founding board member of the Society for Participatory Medicine.

This piece was originally published on Business Insider April 27, 2020, and is republished with permission from PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved. Read the original article here. This piece was last updated June 8, 2018.Read the original article on Psych Central. Copyright 2020.


READ MORE: Bill Gates points to social media as the reason coronavirus conspiracy theories spread so rapidly: 'Incorrect things that are very titillating can spread very rapidly compared to the truth'

SEE ALSO: Why so many people are biased to ignore the risks of COVID-19, according to a psychology professor

FNORD
What conspiracy theories have in common with fiction – and why it makes them compelling stories

by Philip Seargeant, The Conversation

Storytelling: the power of a good narrative can be persuasive. Credit: Billion Photos/Shutterstock

In an era dominated by "fake news" and disinformation, conspiracy theories are coming to play an increasingly influential role in modern politics. During the recent impeachment hearings in the US, for example, former National Security Council official Fiona Hill warned that "fictional narratives" pushed by Russia were undermining American security.

But what's the difference exactly between a conspiracy theory and a legitimate news story? Does "fictional" in this sense simply mean fabricated? My ongoing research suggests there is more to it than this—something which can explain why conspiracy theories can gain such a powerful hold over the public imagination.

The narrative that Hill was referring to in her impeachment testimony is what's known as "Crowdstrike", a conspiracy theory named after a US cybersecurity company, that alleges it was Ukraine rather than Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee's email server in 2016, and that Ukraine, along with the Democrats, subsequently went about framing Russia for interfering in the election.

A day after Hill's testimony the US president, Donald Trump, again trotted out precisely these same allegations in an interview with the TV show Fox & Friends. In doing so he made a string of assertions which are provably false. Reports from both the US intelligence community and special counsel Robert Mueller have, after all, concluded that it was Russia who actively interfered in the 2016 election, while there's no evidence of Ukraine having any part in it.

As Hill noted, the whole Crowdstrike theory seems to be a clear "effort to legitimise an alternative narrative that the Ukrainian government is a US adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016".

Powerful forms of narrative

Conspiracy theories are used in disinformation campaigns in two main ways. On the one hand, the simple act of citing them can be a way of legitimising views you don't like. For instance, the British journalist Carole Cadwalladr's investigations into various shady tactics used by the Leave campaign in 2016 EU referendum are regularly dismissed as nothing more than conspiracies by her enemies.

But conspiracy theories are also used as counter-narratives to confuse the actual nature of events and, in doing so, push a particular ideological view of the world.

It's worth noting that all explanations operate as a type of narrative. A basic dramatic narrative has three steps to it: (1) a person embarks upon a (2) journey into a hostile environment which (3) ultimately leads to self-knowledge.

This same basic structure applies to explanations: (1) you want to discover some information; (2) you find a way of discovering it; and (3) your world is changed as a result.

But, as recent research I've been doing shows, there are several ways in which conspiracy theories draw directly on elements of storytelling that are found in fiction rather than factual narratives.

As in fictional narratives, all the elements in a conspiracy theory are linked through clear lines of cause and effect. There's a reason for everything and, if that reason isn't immediately forthcoming, it's because it's being purposefully hidden as part of the conspiracy. This differs from real life of course, where events often include large amounts of happenstance, inexplicable phenomena and a general murkiness and confusion.

Same story

Then there's the way that conspiracy theories are all underpinned by the same basic archetype: what the writer Christopher Booker calls the "overcoming the monster" story. In this, a single or a small group of rebels take on the overwhelming forces of a corrupt and malevolent establishment which is threatening the wellbeing of society.

Crowdstrike slots snuggly into this formula. Corrupt forces within the political establishment (in this case the Democratic Party) are presented as betraying the will of the people—represented by the election of Trump in 2016. The ongoing impeachment process against the president therefore threatens the welfare of the US as an independent democratic nation. As the political theorist Jan-Werner Muller has noted, this type of conspiracy theory is structurally embedded in the logic of all populist movements in the way their leaders regularly argue that the will of the people can only be denied through underhand and corrupt ways.

Conspiracy theories always fixate on a very simple story which acts as a fable for their overarching worldview. They usually take an issue of real significance—such as foreign influence in domestic elections—but, in order to explain it, they latch on to one succinct story which bypasses the complexities and messiness of real-life phenomena and instead satisfies the logic of their overarching ideological narrative.

For Trump's supporters, the Crowdstrike story feels true because it's another example of the establishment's great witch hunt against him. As a story, it also has a coherent logic which the expanse and messiness of the facts lack. So, in both these ways, our familiarity with the way the world is mediated via fiction helps cast doubt on the way the world actually is.

Study shows there's nothing wacky about conspiracy theorists

by Jessica Fagan, Australian National University

Credit: Pixabay

Researchers at The Australian National University (ANU) have delved into the world of online conspiracy theories, showing most of the people behind them are actually pretty ordinary.

The study looked at eight years of content, sifting through more than two billion comments posted on Reddit, including everything posted to the subreddit r/conspiracy.

R/conspiracy covers everything from UFOs and 9/11, to political conspiracy theories like 'pizzagate', which took off during the 2016 US election campaign.

But despite the subject matter, lead author of the study Dr. Colin Klein says conspiracy theorists aren't always a bunch of "crackpots wearing tinfoil hats".

"In the past before the rise of online forums like Reddit, we tended to only hear about the most extreme views, and those people tended to naturally be wary about talking to someone else about their beliefs," Dr. Klein said.

"These massive online forums paint a very different picture.

"The enormous set of comments we examined show many r/conspiracy users actually have more 'sensible' interests.

"For example conspiracy theories about police abuse of power are common. That's not so crazy.

"These people might believe false things, but with good reason—because similar things have happened in the past."

Professor Klein and his team also found that while there are subtle differences in the language used by those who end up posting on r/conspiracy, it's not necessarily enough to set them apart from other Reddit users.

"You might find they talk more about power or power structures, but their language is not that different from what ordinarily goes on in a forum like r/politics. You can't distinguish them that way.

"It's very easy to look at conspiracy theories and think they're super wacky, and the people who believe in them are crazy, but it's actually much more continuous with a lot of things we do every day.

"Low level theorising goes on a lot in everyday life, I'm inclined to think the stuff you see online is just a strong outgrowth of that."

According to Dr. Klein, forums like r/conspiracy can also be driven by current events.

"For example, Reddit attracted a whole new set of users following the election of US President Donald Trump.

"He also generates quite a lot of in-fighting amongst users. This is what makes it such great way to study social dynamics."

The data also reveals how people come to start posting on the r/conspiracy forum. The rise of Internet echo chambers is a factor—but there's much more at play.

"We followed people who started using Reddit and posted for about six months before they ended up on r/conspiracy," Dr. Klein said.

"You find two people who, for example, both started on the popular 'ask me anything' Reddit, and one ends up talking about conspiracies and one doesn't.

"People who go on to post on r/conspiracy also tend to be over-represented in the political forums, but it's not like they're hyper-focused.

"This suggests a more active process where people are seeking out sympathetic communities. This process of finding like-minded people is something we see a lot of on the Internet."

The research has been published in the journal PLOS ONE.

Conspiracy theorists actively seek out their online communities

by Colin Klein, Adam Dunn and Peter Clutton, The Conversation

The term illuminati has been used since the late 15th century, and applied to various groups since then. It’s often discussed by conspiracy theorists, and is heavily referenced in pop-culture. Credit: Lettuce./Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Why do people believe conspiracy theories? Is it because of who they are, what they've encountered, or a combination of both?

The answer is important. Belief in conspiracy theories helps fuel climate change denial, anti-vaccination stances, racism, and distrust of the media and science.

In a paper published today, we shed light on the online world of conspiracy theorists, by studying a large set of user comments.

Our key findings are that people who eventually engage with conspiracy forums differ from those who don't in both where and what they post. The patterns of difference suggest they actively seek out sympathetic communities, rather than passively stumbling into problematic beliefs.

We looked at eight years of comments posted on the popular website Reddit, a platform hosting millions of individual forums called subreddits.

Our aim was to find out the main differences between users who post in r/conspiracy (a subreddit dedicated to conspiracy theories) and other Reddit users.

Using a technique called sentiment analysis we examined what users said, and where they said it, during the months before their first post in r/conspiracy.

We compared these posts to those of other users who started posting on Reddit at the same time, and in the same subreddits, but without going on to post in r/conspiracy.

We then constructed a network of the subreddits through which r/conspiracy posters traveled. In doing so, we were able to discover how and why they reached their destination.

Seeking the like-minded

Our research suggests there is evidence for the "self-selection" of conspiracy theorists. This means users appear to be seeking communities of people who share their views.

Users followed clear pathways to eventually reach r/conspiracy.

For example, these users were over-represented in subreddits focused on politics, drugs and internet culture, and engaged with such topics more often than their matched pairs.

We were also surprised by the diversity of pathways taken to get to r/conspiracy. The users were not as concentrated on one side of the political spectrum as people might expect. Nor did we find more anxiety in their posts, compared with other users.

Our previous research also indicated online conspiracy theorists are more diverse and ordinary than most people assume.

Where do the beliefs come from?

To dig deeper, we examined the interactions between where and what r/conspiracy users posted.

In political subreddits, the language used by them and their matched pairs was quite similar. However, in Reddit's very popular general-purpose subreddits, the linguistic differences between the two groups were striking.

So far, psychologists, sociologists, and philosophers have struggled to find anything distinct about conspiracy believers or their environments.

Social media can play a role in spreading conspiracy theories, but it mostly entrenches beliefs among those who already have them. Thus it can be challenging to measure and understand how conspiracy beliefs arise.

Traditional survey and interview approaches don't always give reliable responses. This is because conspiracy theorists often frame their life in narratives of conversation and awakening, which can obscure the more complex origins of their beliefs.

Furthermore, as philosopher David Coady pointed out, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Insiders do sometimes uncover evidence of malfeasance and cover-ups, as recent debates over the need for whistleblower protections in Australia reflect.

Echo chambers worsen the problem

Research about online radicalization from philosophy has focused on the passive effects of technologies such as recommended algorithms and their role in creating online echo chambers.

Our research instead suggests individuals seem to have a more active role in finding like-minded communities, before their interactions in such communities reinforce their beliefs.

These "person-situation interactions" are clearly important and under-theorized.

As the psychologist David C. Funder puts it: "Individuals do not just passively find themselves in the situations of their lives; they often actively seek and choose them. Thus, while a certain kind of bar may tend to generate a situation that creates fights around closing time, only a certain kind of person will choose to go to that kind of bar in the first place."

We suspect a similar process leads users to conspiracy forums.

A complex web of interactions

Our data indicates that conspiracy beliefs, like most beliefs, are not adopted in a vacuum. They are actively mulled over, discussed, and sought out by agents in a social (and increasingly online) world.

And when forums like 8chan and Stormfront are pushed offline, users often look for other ways to communicate.

These complex interactions are growing in number, and technology can amplify their effects.

YouTube radicalization, for example, is likely driven by interactions between algorithms and self-selected communities.

When it comes to conspiracy beliefs, more work needs to be done to understand the interplay between a person's social environment and their information seeking behavior.

And this becomes even more pressing as we learn more about the risks that come with conspiracy theorizing.

---

More information: Colin Klein et al. Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit's conspiracy theory forum, PLOS ONE (2019). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225098

Journal information: PLoS ONE 

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CONSPIRACY

Christian nationalism and biblical literalism independently predict conspiracy thinking, study finds

2023/06/11


A new study has found that both Christian nationalism and biblical literalism are independently associated with a greater tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. When people believed in both Christian nationalism and biblical literalism, their distrust of government officials increased significantly. The findings, published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, provide insight into the sociocultural factors that contribute to the spread and persistence of conspiracy beliefs in certain populations.

The researchers were motivated by the growing concern over the harmful effects of conspiracy theories, such as the spread of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and the belief in the stolen election narrative, which led to the January 6 insurrection at the United States Capitol. They sought to better understand the factors that contribute to the endorsement of conspiracy theories within specific religious and ideological contexts.

Biblical literalism refers to an approach to interpreting religious texts, such as the Bible, in a strictly literal and word-for-word manner. It involves the belief that the Bible is an accurate historical and scientific account, and every passage should be understood as directly and precisely true.

Christian nationalism, on the other hand, is a political ideology that combines Christianity with a sense of national identity and seeks to establish a close relationship between religion and the state. It views the nation as fundamentally rooted in Christian values and principles, and it often advocates for policies and laws based on those beliefs.

“Like many, we were deeply affected by the sharp divisions, fueled by conspiracy theories, that arose around COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election,” explained study author Brooklyn Evann Walker, an instructor of political science at Hutchinson Community College.

“We noted that conspiracy theories related to both COVID-19 and the Big Lie gained traction in religious communities that tended towards biblical literalism and Christian nationalism, leading us to wonder if either of these two aspects of American religion (biblical literalism and Christian nationalism) were related to a broader tendency for Americans to think in conspiratorial ways.”

To conduct the study, the researchers used data from the 2019 wave of the Chapman University Survey of American Fears (CSAF), which included measures of Christian nationalism, biblical literalism, and various demographic variables. The survey was administered online to a nationally representative sample of American adults, resulting in a final sample size of 1,219.

The survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the idea that the government is concealing information about different events. These events included conspiracy theories related to government cover-ups of extraterrestrial life, the belief that the 9/11 attacks were not solely carried out by terrorists but involved government involvement or a cover-up, belief in a secretive group or organization that controls world events (e.g. the Illuminati), and more.

The measure of conspiracy thinking including both popularized conspiracy theories as well as one contrived event, allowing the researchers to assess respondents’ adherence to a generalized conspiracy mindset rather than just specific theories.

The study found that there is a positive association between Christian nationalism and belief in conspiracy theories. In other words, individuals who held stronger Christian nationalist beliefs (e.g. “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation”) were more likely to endorse conspiracy thinking. This relationship held even when considering the fictional conspiratorial event introduced in the survey, indicating a general propensity for conspiracy thinking.

Furthermore, the study suggested that biblical literalism plays a role in shaping conspiracy thinking. Those who adhered to a literal interpretation of the Bible were more likely to adopt conspiracy thinking, and biblical literalism was found to amplify the effect of Christian nationalism on conspiracy thinking. This suggests that the elevation of religious authority over scientific sources and an anti-elitist sentiment within the Christian nationalist identity contribute to the adoption of conspiracy theories.

“Christian nationalism links being Christian to being American. In the view of many Christian nationalists, this linkage is threatened by secularization and other social changes. Biblical literalism is the belief that each word in the Bible should be accepted as God’s word spoken directly to readers, not to be filtered through religious elites,” Walker told PsyPost.

“Using survey data, we find that the sense of a threatened nation inherent in Christian nationalism and the anti-elite tendencies in biblical literalism amplify conspiracy thinking, and that the two have especially strong effects when they occur together. We conclude that Christian nationalist and biblical literalist support of COVID-19 and the 2020 election conspiracy theories are not a one-off; Christian nationalists and biblical literalists are likely to buy into future conspiracy theories, too.”

Importantly, the findings held even after controlling for demographic variables such as race, gender, age, education, and political leanings. The researchers found that conservative ideology was correlated with conspiracy thinking, while attending religious services had a negative relationship, possibly due to the social capital and trust-building aspects of religious engagement.

“We were surprised at the effect sizes we observed. When occurring together, biblical literalism and Christian nationalism had a much stronger effect than well-established predictors of conspiracy thinking, like education,” Walker said. “It’s also important not to lump all religious activity together — religious service attendance was consistently associated with less conspiracy thinking.”

However, the researchers acknowledge some limitations in their study. They were not able to account for certain psychological factors related to how people perceive and interpret information, such as the need to find patterns among events. They also note that their measure of conspiracy thinking focused on specific conspiracy beliefs and may not capture the full range of conspiracy thinking.

“We measured conspiracy thinking by respondents’ agreement with eight different conspiracy theories,” Walker explained. “Social scientists have developed other measures of conspiracy thinking that don’t rely on respondents’ knowledge of specific conspiracy theories. Replicating our models with one of these more general measures would certainly strengthen the findings.”

“Also, we can’t stop with diagnosing the problem — we need to think deeply about how Christian nationalists and biblical literalists might become less susceptible to conspiracy thinking.”

The study, “Christ, Country, and Conspiracies? Christian Nationalism, Biblical Literalism, and Belief in Conspiracy Theories“, was authored by Brooklyn Walker and Abigail Vegter.

© PsyPost

First-of-its-kind study sheds light on the psychological impact of antisemitic conspiracy theories on Jewish people

2023/12/08


New research published in the British Journal of Psychology shows that Jewish individuals who believe antisemitic conspiracy theories are prevalent in society experience increased feelings of threat and a tendency to avoid those outside their group. This study, one of the first of its kind, sheds light on the often-overlooked consequences of conspiracy theories on the groups they target.

While a significant amount of research has been done on why people believe in conspiracy theories, there has been little focus on how these theories affect the groups they target. Conspiracy theories can be harmful, often targeting specific groups with accusations of secret, malevolent actions. This new study aimed to understand the impact of such beliefs on Jewish individuals, a group frequently subjected to conspiracy theories.

“We can’t fully appreciate how conspiracy theories divide society unless we consider how the targets of these beliefs are affected,” explained study author Daniel Jolley (@DrDanielJolley), an assistant professor in social psychology at the University of Nottingham. “Whilst research exploring the consequences of those who subscribe to conspiracy theories is undoubtedly important, a notable oversight is the research examining the perspective of the targets of conspiracy theories. Our work therefore sought to explore how conspiracy theories about social groups can have significant negative effects on their members.”

The first part of the study involved 250 Jewish participants, mostly from the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom. They were asked to estimate how popular they thought various Jewish conspiracy theories were among non-Jewish people. Following this, the participants rated their feelings of threat from these conspiracies and their level of anxiety about interacting with non-Jewish people. The study also measured their preference for avoiding contact with non-Jewish individuals.

The researchers found that participants who believed that conspiracy theories about Jewish people were more popular felt more threatened and showed a stronger preference for avoiding contact with non-Jewish people. However, there was no direct link between the perceived popularity of these conspiracy theories and personal anxiety when meeting non-Jewish people.

The second study took a different approach, using an experimental method with 210 Jewish participants from the United States. The participants were randomly exposed to manipulated information suggesting that either many or few non-Jewish people believed in Jewish conspiracy theories. The participants then rated their levels of intergroup threat, personal anxiety, and avoidance preferences similar to the first study.

Participants exposed to the scenario where many non-Jews believed in conspiracy theories reported higher levels of threat and perceived anger within their group. However, their personal anxiety and avoidance preferences didn’t show significant differences from those exposed to the scenario where few non-Jews believed in these theories. This reinforced the notion that the perceived prevalence of these theories among outsiders could influence internal group emotions, particularly a sense of threat and collective anger.

“Our work focused on the impact of conspiracy theories about Jewish people on the emotions and behaviors of the Jewish community,” Jolley told PsyPost. “Our studies revealed that perceiving Jewish conspiracy theories as popular is linked with Jewish feeling threatened, angry and anxious. These conspiracy beliefs are also linked to Jewish people being more avoidant of non-Jewish people.”

The third study, involving 209 American Jewish participants, built further on these findings. Participants were again exposed to manipulated scenarios indicating varying levels of belief in conspiracy theories among non-Jewish people. This time, the researchers also measured the participants’ willingness to take collective action in support of Jewish people and introduced an opportunity for participants to engage in a simulated online interaction with a non-Jewish person.

The participants who were led to believe that conspiracy theories were widely held showed greater willingness for collective action and were more likely to avoid interacting with a non-Jewish person in the behavioral task. This study provided a crucial link between perceptions, emotions, and actual behavior, demonstrating that the perceived popularity of conspiracy theories can lead to real-world avoidance of intergroup contact.

“One surprising aspect of our findings was the dual effect of perceived conspiracy popularity,” Jolley said. “On one hand, it increased group solidarity within the targeted community, fostering intentions to support fellow members. However, it also fueled a desire to avoid interactions with individuals outside the community. This nuanced perspective adds complexity to the understanding of the consequences of intergroup conspiracy theories, highlighting both positive and negative outcomes.”

These studies collectively highlight a critical aspect of conspiracy theories – their impact on the targeted groups. The findings underscore that conspiracy theories are more than just a societal curiosity; they have tangible, adverse effects on those they target. They contribute to a sense of threat, emotional distress, and social avoidance within these groups, which can exacerbate social divides and perpetuate misunderstanding and prejudice.

“Our work focused on the Jewish community,” Jolley said. “However, we believe that our findings are very unlikely to be isolated to Jewish people. Conspiracy theories target many different groups – from healthcare workers and scientists to entire social groups. The same impacts such as feeling threatened, angry, and anxious, and a desire to avoid others, are likely observed in a wide range of target groups.”

“We hope that our work acts as a catalyst for exploring the impact of perceived conspiracy popularity in other groups, and that such work can provide important insights that can used to support those who are targeted.”

The study, “The impact of conspiracy beliefs on a targeted group: Perceived popularity of Jewish-targeted conspiracy beliefs elicits outgroup avoidant behaviours“, was authored by Daniel Jolley, Jenny L. Paterson, and Andrew McNeill.

© PsyPost

Hitting the Books: Why that one uncle of yours continually refuses to believe in climate change


Andrew Tarantola
·Senior Editor
Sat, October 2, 2021

The holidays are fast approaching and you know what that means: pumpkin spice everything, seasonal cheer, and family gatherings — all while avoiding your QAnon adherent relatives like the plague. But when you do eventually get cornered by them, come prepared.

In his latest book, How to Talk to a Science Denier, author Lee McIntyre examines the phenomenon of denialism, exploring the conspiracy theories that drive it, and explains how you can most effectively address your relatives' misplaced concerns over everything from mRNA vaccines to why the Earth isn't actually flat.

asdf

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Other Who Defy Reason, by Lee McIntyre, published by The MIT Press.


Belief in conspiracy theories is one of the most toxic forms of human reasoning. This is not to say that real conspiracies do not exist. Watergate, the tobacco companies’ collusion to obfuscate the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, and the George W. Bush–era NSA program to secretly spy on civilian Internet users are all examples of real-life conspiracies, which were discovered through evidence and exposed after exhaustive investigation.

By contrast, what makes conspiracy theory reasoning so odious is that whether or not there is any evidence, the theory is asserted as true, which puts it beyond all reach of being tested or refuted by scientists and other debunkers. The distinction, therefore, should be between actual conspiracies (for which there should be some evidence) and conspiracy theories (which customarily have no credible evidence). We might define a conspiracy theory as an “explanation that makes reference to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim.” Crucially, we need to add that these tend to be “highly speculative [and] based on no evidence. They are pure conjecture, without any basis in reality.”

When we talk about the danger of conspiracy theories for scientific reasoning, our focus should therefore be on their nonempirical nature, which means that they are not even capable of being tested in the first place. What is wrong with conspiracy theories is not normally that they have already been refuted (though many have), but that thousands of gullible people will continue to believe them even when they have been debunked.

If you scratch a science denier, chances are you’ll find a conspiracy theorist. Sadly, conspiracy theories seem to be quite common in the general population as well. In a recent study by Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood they found that 50 percent of Americans believed in at least one conspiracy theory.

This included the 9/11 truther and Obama birther conspiracies, but also the idea that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is deliberately withholding a cure for cancer, and that the Federal Reserve intentionally orchestrated the 2008 recession. (Notably, the JFK assassination conspiracy was so widely held that it was excluded from the study.)

Other common conspiracy theories — which run the range of popularity and outlandishness — are that “chemtrails” left by planes are part of a secret government mind-control spraying program, that the school shootings at Sandy Hook and Parkland were “false flag” operations, that the government is covering up the truth about UFOs, and of course the more “science-related” ones that the Earth is flat, that global warming is a hoax, that some corporations are intentionally creating toxic GMOs, and that COVID-19 is caused by 5G cell phone towers.

In its most basic form, a conspiracy theory is a non-evidentially justified belief that some tremendously unlikely thing is nonetheless true, but we just don’t realize it because there is a coordinated campaign run by powerful people to cover it up. Some have contended that conspiracy theories are especially prevalent in times of great societal upheaval. And, of course, this explains why conspiracy theories are not unique to modern times. As far back as the great fire of Rome in 64 AD, we saw conspiracy theories at work, when the citizens of Rome became suspicious over a weeklong blaze that consumed almost the entire city — while the emperor Nero was conveniently out of town. Rumors began to spread that Nero had started it in order to rebuild the city in his own design. While there was no evidence that this was true (nor for the legend that Nero sang while the city burned), Nero was apparently so upset by the accusation that he started his own conspiracy theory that it was in fact the Christians who were responsible, which led to the prevalence of burning them alive.

Here one understands immediately why conspiracy theories are anathema to scientific reasoning. In science, we test our beliefs against reality by looking for disconfirming evidence. If we find only evidence that fits our theory, then it might be true. But if we find any evidence that disconfirms our theory, it must be ruled out. With conspiracy theories, however, they don’t change their views even in the face of disconfirming evidence (nor do they seem to require much evidence, beyond gut instinct, that their views are true in the first place). Instead, conspiracy theorists tend to use the conspiracy itself as a way to explain any lack of evidence (because the clever conspirators must be hiding it) or the presence of evidence that disconfirms it (because the shills must be faking it). Thus, lack of evidence in favor of a conspiracy theory is in part explained by the conspiracy itself, which means that its adherents can count both evidence and lack of evidence in their favor.

Virtually all conspiracy theorists are what I call “cafeteria skeptics.” Although they profess to uphold the highest standards of reasoning, they do so inconsistently. Conspiracy theorists are famous for their double standard of evidence: they insist on an absurd standard of proof when it concerns something they do not want to believe, while accepting with scant to nonexistent evidence whatever they do want to believe. We have already seen the weakness of this type of selective reasoning with cherry-picking evidence. Add to this a predilection for the kind of paranoid suspicion that underlies most conspiracy-minded thinking, and we face an almost impenetrable wall of doubt. When a conspiracy theorist indulges their suspicions about the alleged dangers of vaccines, chemtrails, or fluoride — but then takes any contrary or debunking information as itself proof of a cover-up — they lock themselves in a hermetically sealed box of doubt that no amount of facts could ever get them out of. For all of their protests of skepticism, most conspiracy theorists are in fact quite gullible.

Belief in the flatness of the Earth is a great example. Time and again at FEIC 2018, I heard presenters say that any scientific evidence in favor of the curvature of the Earth had been faked. “There was no Moon landing; it happened on a Hollywood set.” “All the airline pilots and astronauts are in on the hoax.” “Those pictures from space are Photoshopped.” Not only did disconfirming evidence of these claims not cause the Flat Earthers to give up their beliefs, it was used as more evidence for the conspiracy! And of course to claim that the devil is behind the whole cover-up about Flat Earth could there be a bigger conspiracy theory? Indeed, most Flat Earthers would admit that themselves. A similar chain of reasoning is often used in climate change denial. President Trump has long held that global warming is a “Chinese hoax” meant to undermine the competitiveness of American manufacturing.

Others have contended that climate scientists are fudging the data or that they are biased because they are profiting from the money and attention being paid to their work. Some would argue that the plot is even more nefarious — that climate change is being used as a ruse to justify more government regulation or takeover of the world economy. Whatever evidence is presented to debunk these claims is explained as part of a conspiracy: it was faked, biased, or at least incomplete, and the real truth is being covered up. No amount of evidence can ever convince a hardcore science denier because they distrust the people who are gathering the evidence. So what is the explanation? Why do some people (like science deniers) engage in conspiracy theory thinking while others do not?

Various psychological theories have been offered, involving factors such as inflated self-confidence, narcissism, or low self-esteem. A more popular consensus seems to be that conspiracy theories are a coping mechanism that some people use to deal with feelings of anxiety and loss of control in the face of large, upsetting events. The human brain does not like random events, because we cannot learn from and therefore cannot plan for them. When we feel helpless (due to lack of understanding, the scale of an event, its personal impact on us, or our social position), we may feel drawn to explanations that identify an enemy we can confront. This is not a rational process, and researchers who have studied conspiracy theories note that those who tend to “go with their gut” are the most likely to indulge in conspiracy-based thinking. This is why ignorance is highly correlated with belief in conspiracy theories. When we are less able to understand something on the basis of our analytical faculties, we may feel more threatened by it.

There is also the fact that many are attracted to the idea of “hidden knowledge,” because it serves their ego to think that they are one of the few people to understand something that others don’t know. In one of the most fascinating studies of conspiracy-based thinking, Roland Imhoff invented a fictitious conspiracy theory, then measured how many subjects would believe it, depending on the epistemological context within which it was presented. Imhoff’s conspiracy was a doozy: he claimed that there was a German manufacturer of smoke alarms that emitted high-pitched sounds that made people feel nauseous and depressed. He alleged that the manufacturer knew about the problem but refused to fix it. When subjects thought that this was secret knowledge, they were much more likely to believe it. When Imhoff presented it as common knowledge, people were less likely to think that it was true.

One can’t help here but think of the six hundred cognoscenti in that ballroom in Denver. Out of six billion people on the planet, they were the self-appointed elite of the elite: the few who knew the “truth” about the flatness of the Earth and were now called upon to wake the others.

What is the harm from conspiracy theories? Some may seem benign, but note that the most likely factor in predicting belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in another one. And not all of those will be harmless. What about the anti-vaxxer who thinks that there is a government cover-

up of the data on thimerosal, whose child gives another measles? Or the belief that anthropogenic (human- caused) climate change is just a hoax, so our leaders in government feel justified in delay? As the clock ticks on averting disaster, the human consequences of the latter may end up being incalculable.