On a scale of 1 to 7, do you think JFK was killed by the C.I.A.? The moon landing was faked? The Queen is an alien reptile? That might sound trite, but it’s how most psychological research into conspiracy theories has measured belief. Is this the best way to go about it? Continue reading
A recent poll by ‘Public Polling Policy’, (despite the name, a private US polling company) conducted an automated telephone poll of 1247 registered US voters and asked respondents a variety of questions about their belief in various popular conspiracy theories. The topline results are available here and are well worth exploring in detail.
The main focus of the research was to measure conspiracy belief across party lines (Democrat vs Republican) as well as to provide a general background measure of conspiracy belief in specific theories. The results were interesting (and sometimes contradictory compared to other polls), but helped to cause many sensational (and occasionally misleading) headlines around the world.
There are several important things to note here when we consider these results. This was a poll of registered voters – an important distinction if we assume that one of the correlates of conspiracy belief, political cynicism/apathy is relevant. If conspiracy believers feel that the world is being controlled by a malevolent group, or that the government is corrupt, they may not be registered to vote as they may feel there is little point. Another distinctive point to make is that conspiracy belief is often seen to be higher among ethnic minorities, whom, especially in the US, may not necessarily be registered voters.
Apart from the potential sampling errors, we have to consider very specifically how these types of questions are asked. Conspiracy theories are multi-faceted and multi-dimensional in their focus, but at their core, boil down to five or six key components. As a result, the wording of a question to discuss a particular kind of conspiracy theory may inadvertently skew results.
A perfect example of this is the question that asks
‘Do you believe aliens exist, or not?’
This does not cover any conspiracy directly. It doesn’t cover governments covering their existence up, denying they exist, or any influence aliens may have over the general population. Many notable physicists and scientists believe in the existence of aliens; it could be considered a statistical hubris to assume we are alone in the universe – but the idea that aliens have visited Earth and/or governments attempt to conceal this is a complete separate belief that is far more closely related to conspiracist ideation.
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is the idea that belief is a binary dichotomous construct. A yes/no response to these questions does not give us nearly enough information to make sensible conclusions, especially when the questions are worded in such a way to only explore a very specific or very general conspiracist idea. The 9/11 question is of particular relevance here. The original question wording was
‘Do you believe the United States government knowingly allowed the attacks on September 11th, 2001, to happen, or not?’
The low results to this question surprised many and perhaps can be explained because most of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 maintain that rather than letting it happen, the government (or corrupt elements thereof) planned and carried out the attacks instead. This is an important ideological and political point and represents a very different type of conspiracy, one which perhaps is more commonly believed. Other polls have often asked questions that relate directly to the government planning and carrying out the attacks, rather than ‘letting them happen’.
So, while the discussion continues about the accuracy of these latest results, and the concern that 21% of voters apparently believe President Obama is the Anti-Christ, it is important to recognise the potential problems and pitfalls about sampling and constructing this type of data without the proper consideration for this complex and often contradictory area of belief.
A short post today to bring you a great info-graphic detailing the poll results from the recent Public Policy Polling data. Click to enlarge for the best view!
The United States of Conspiracy
This morning I came across a news article that read so similar to my pro-conspiracy manipulation used within a recent paper, it was quite unnerving. I have spoken about this paper before on this blog, where it was shown that exposure to pro-conspiracy information concerning climate change increased one’s conspiracy belief, which subsequently decreased their intention to reduce their carbon footprint.
This manipulation involved the climate change conspiracy theory being presented, without information refuting it (i.e., “the main-stream account”) being acknowledged. Therefore, the piece aimed to explore the direct impact of being exposed to such conspiracies. Interestingly, the news article here does appear to follow a similar pattern, rather it does not seem to mention the main-stream account to show a balance argument, and when it does, it is in rather a negative light. Further, it includes evidence from scientists, and provides a variety of statistics, all again not counter-balanced, and all again reading similar to my pro-conspiracy manipulation.
Whilst it is great that these events are discussed, there does need to be some caution. Rather, this article is presented in such a fashion that one’s beliefs (and potentially behaviours) can be influenced without one being even being aware due to the hidden impact of conspiracies, as shown in previous research. Specifically, with this media source having such an impact (e.g., the article has been liked on Facebook over two thousand times already), it should have provided a more balanced argument, and thus being potentially less unfairly influential.
In these blog posts, I aim to try and highlight the potential consequences of conspiracy theories using real examples, where possible, and also the potential impact of being exposed to such information. Conspiracy theories are fascinating, but when being exposed to such material in this pro-conspiracy fashion, you need to be aware of the influential nature of exposure to such information, and subsequently actively view it through a more critical eye.
In conclusion: Exposure to pro-conspiracy information has been shown to influence beliefs and behavioural intentions in a lab-setting. Therefore, can being exposed to such information within the media have the same detrimental effects, but in the real world? The experimental research suggests a concerning answer.
Although I don’t do it as much as I used to, I still enjoy arguing about conspiracy theories with people on the Internet. As I’m generally pretty skeptical of conspiracy explanations, I usually find myself defending whatever the conventional explanation for something is, and as often as not I get accused of believing without question whatever the government (or Big Pharma, or whoever) tells me. Basically, people accuse me of being an authoritarian, which I’m decidedly not (much to my parents’ dismay).
There has been a lot of psychological research on authoritarianism, much of it by Theodor Adorno and Bob Altemeyer. Some has even concerned conspiracy theories, but as you’ll see, the results are a bit inconsistent. Some studies have shown that people who are more authoritarian are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. For instance, in a seminal study in conspiracy psychology, Marina Abalakina-Paap and colleagues showed that specific conspiracy beliefs tend to be associated with high levels of authoritarianism. Several studies by Monika Grzesiak-Feldman have shown that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Poland are more likely to be held by authoritarians. Likewise, a study in the 1990s by Yelland and Stone found that authoritarians are more amenable to persuasion that the Holocaust was a hoax, orchestrated by a massive Jewish conspiracy. Viren Swami, a psychologist at the University of Westminster, has demonstrated that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are associated with authoritarianism in a Malaysian sample as well.
But there’s some evidence pointing the other way as well. In a separate study, Swami and his colleagues at the University of Westminster showed that 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are associated with negative attitudes toward authority, and John W. McHoskey found that people high in authoritarianism were more likely to be anti-conspiracist when it comes to the JFK assassination.
So what’s going on here? It looks like the content of the theories is what matters. The research on the psychology of authoritarianism has long shown that authoritarians tend to derogate and scapegoat minorities, which seems to be what’s going on in a lot of these anti-Semitic cases: a minority is being blamed by the majority for the ills of society. Swami’s Malaysian study actually proposes that the anti-Semitism shown by the Malaysian respondents might be a proxy for anti-Chinese racist attitudes: there are very few Jews in Malaysia, so Malaysian authoritarians might displace their ethnic aggression from a relatively powerful and socially accepted minority group (Chinese) onto one that is almost non-existent in their society and so can be scapegoated without consequence (Jews).
In contrast, a lot of modern conspiracy theories have a very populist and anti-government tone. They blame authorities for the evils of society, not minorities – the American government blew up the Twin Towers, MI6 killed Princess Diana, and so on. So it makes sense that authoritarians would be less likely to believe that their governments are conspiring against them and anti-authoritarians would find this idea more appealing. There’s no uniform association between authoritarianism and conspiracy belief – it seems to depend on the specifics of the theory in question.
As a side note: there is still some crossover between the anti-Semitic conspiracy world and the more anti-authoritarian theories like the 9/11 truth movement. 9/11 conspiracies are very popular in the Arab world, where there’s also a lot of anti-Semitism. There is also some crossover in the domain of anti-Zionism, which most anti-authoritarian conspiracy theorists seem to adhere to – David Dees is a good example (probably most of his cartoons feature anti-Zionist elements) – but anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, it’s just a point on which authoritarian and anti-authoritarian conspiracy theorists often agree.
Figures in the crowd like Jesse Ventura and Ron Paul represent the new conspiracism, while the Jewish-caricature bankers are a throwback
Still, antisemitism used to be much more socially acceptable than it is now, and its influence persists in the darker corners of even some modern conspiracy theories. You can see this a lot in editorial cartoons, where conspirators, especially bankers, are portrayed as having exaggerated hooked noses and tentacles straight out of Der Ewige Jude. The artists probably have nothing against Jewish people, but are instead following the conventions of anti-banker propaganda that were first established in the early 20th century, when Nesta Webster was in her prime, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were still a going concern, and people were generally just really worried that the Jews were up to something.
As blogged about previously, conspiracy theories are influential and exposure to such theories can influence both beliefs and behavioural intentions in a variety of domains. However, a recent news story caught my attention, as it clearly demonstrated a sense of detachment with legal requirements due to a conspiracy belief.
This news story related to a man who refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He commented that he did not want to give money to an organisation ‘funding practice of terrorism’. This is particularly interesting, as it shows how such a belief can prevent a legal requirement being followed. Rather, a further development to the story relates to him admitting owning a TV and watching it without a licence, as he wanted to keep an eye on what the BBC was showing.
There can be a variety of reasons for the development of this conspiracy belief, and these have been discussed previously on this blog relating to other types of conspiracy theories (e.g., the monological belief system). However, I wanted to highlight this real world example, as previous empirical research has suggested that conspiracy theory beliefs can affect the societal engagement in several domains. For example, focus groups have shown that parents are reluctant to immunize their children due to endorsing conspiracy theories. This indicates the detrimental effects that may be elicited by endorsing conspiracy beliefs, which has already been discussed in several previous blog posts (e.g., concerning HIV/AIDs conspiracies), and now shown here in this intriguing example.
There are a variety of ways a conspiracy belief can influence a person’s thoughts, beliefs and behaviours. This example clearly demonstrates one way this can, arguably, negatively influence a person’s societal engagement. Whilst there is still room for empirical research to be carried out to further explore the consequences of conspiracy endorsement, real world examples like these suggest a compelling tale.
In 2010, politicians from the Utah House of Representatives urged the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately suspend policies aiming to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Why? Global climate change, the politicians argued, is a fraud. According to the Utah Representatives, the apparent scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate warming is the product of a consortium of scientists who manipulate data, subvert the peer-review process, and attempt to bully the small minority of dissenting scientists into silence. Faking empirical support for global warming allows these “climate change alarmists” to ride “the climate change ‘gravy train’”. And so, rather than take steps to protect public health and the future of the planet by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the Utah politicians called instead for an “investigation of the climate data conspiracy.” Continue reading
Links to a few recent conspiracy-oriented stories from around the internet. Unsurprisingly, the major topic of conspiracy theorising over the past few weeks has been the Newtown shooting; conspiracy theories arose immediately after the tragedy and are still gaining strength. We’ve discussed the psychology of these kinds of theories here on the blog too – see these posts by myself, Mike, and Christopher.
Have I missed a good story? Let me know in the comments.
In the recent weeks following the tragedy of the Sandy Hook shooting, we have seen many different viewpoints expressed regarding the fiercely debated issue of US gun control. In particular, one of the most controversial and volatile interviews came from CNN’s Piers Morgan, who invited conservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to discuss gun control, and a petition to get Morgan deported from the US for attacking the 2nd Amendment.
The interview revealed some interesting insight into the types of conspiracy that Jones propagates. As one of the (self-proclaimed) founders of the 9/11 truth movement, Jones broadcasts a radio show syndicated to over 100 stations across the US, and boasts over a million and a half listeners. In his show and associated website, infowars.com, he discusses a vast array of theories ranging from governments tracking citizens with microchips and raw milk controversies, to Bin Laden’s faked assassination and more traditional 9/11 conspiracies.
Watching the interview, it demonstrated how often political and conspiracy ideology overlap, and it could be argued that conspiratorial ideas are a form of political process, especially from those who consider themselves alienated or deserted by the traditional political methods. Consider the ‘Birther’ movement that suggests Barack Obama was not born in the US and thus cannot legally assume the position of President. People unhappy with the original political outcome (the election) could feel exposed or betrayed, and thus turn to alternatives. This also helps to explain why a substantial amount of conspiracies have government at their heart, with their participation (or inaction) key to many of the world’s injustices.
In the fifteen minutes Jones has on air with Morgan, we see a perfect example of what psychologists have termed a ‘monological belief system’. This is the where an individual can build and maintain a view of the world that is ruled by conspiracies, they are seen everywhere and anywhere, and explain many of the surprising, uncontrollable, or deadly events that happen. As this system develops, people become closed-off and reluctant to believe in alternative explanations, spotting conspiracies in increasing amounts of events and situations.
This system has been demonstrated by research that suggests that belief in one particular conspiracy theory strongly predicts belief in others, even unrelated or contradictory ones. These views are not driven necessarily by theories supporting each other, but instead a general overarching belief that supports conspiracy in general.
With this belief, it is not necessarily the specifics of a conspiracy that are important (often in sensitive cases such as mass shootings conspiracists “just ask questions”), but the fact that the perpetrators are lying, covering up, or misleading the public. This motivation to uncover deception leads to performances such as Jones’, who in his interview mentions between 8 and 12 distinct conspiracies, not all overlapping. These include:
a. Megabanks either control the world already or are about to seize control in order to enact global tyranny
b. Loose theories around large media groups controlling what is revealed to the public, including the Bloomberg group /AP/Reuters
c. US Government plans to oppress the people once guns are removed
d. Prozac and other ‘Mass murder/suicide pills’ responsible for mass shootings
e. The UK as a police state
f. Morgan (and others at CNN) are ‘Hatchet men’ of the NWO
g. First person shooter style video games responsible for mass shootings
h. Most of the recent mass shootings are false flag events setup by government to control the population
i. More specific conspiracies surrounding Building 7 (WTC attacks)
j. “Criminal elements of the military-industry complex” responsible for 9/11
k. Other general false flag conspiracies through history including Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Gladio and the Reichstag fire.
American politics in particular suffers from a underlying amount of paranoia, and Mike in his recent article discussed how any mass shooting is politicised by default because of the thorny issue of gun control. The leap, however, in taking a set of tragic shocking circumstances, and maintaining that it was orchestrated for a more sinister purpose, is difficult for some to comprehend.
