Conspiracy theoriesWho is likely to believe in conspiracy theories?
Conspiracy theories about government officials and the institutions they represent are widespread and rooted in U.S. history, but they are particularly prevalent in times of rapid social and cultural change, increased cultural and ethnic diversity, and widespread collective action among members of previously marginalized groups. “For many members of the public, particularly individuals who have benefited from existing social and political arrangements, these developments and changes are quite threatening and can motivate compensatory endorsement of conspiracy beliefs or theories.”
Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone?
Was the moon landing a hoax?
Did the Obama administration hire crisis actors to stage the Sandy Hook mass shooting to push an anti-gun agenda?
Conspiracy theories about government officials and the institutions they represent are widespread and rooted in U.S. history, according to the co-author of two new social psychology studies that predict the likelihood that someone will believe conspiracy beliefs or theories.
Joseph A. Vitriol, a postdoctoral research associate at Lehigh, and a co-author on both studies, says, “The current political moment is one of volatility and major social change, including increased cultural and ethnic diversity and widespread collective action among members of previously marginalized groups, who are effectively challenging the status quo and seeking change in public policy and political discourse.”
He adds, “For many members of the public, particularly individuals who have benefited from existing social and political arrangements, these developments and changes are quite threatening and can motivate compensatory endorsement of conspiracy beliefs or theories.”
Lehigh says that Vitriol and Jessecae K. Marsh, an associate professor of psychology at Lehigh, have found that people who overestimate how well they understand politics are more likely to believe that hidden actors or clandestine groups are conspiring in wide-ranging activities to influence important world actions, events and outcomes.
In their research, Vitriol and Marsh asked participants to rate how well they thought they understood a series of public policies. They then asked those participants to provide as detailed an explanation as they could for how the policies actually worked.
After generating these explanations, participants re-rated their confidence in their understanding of the policies.
Marsh explains that the act of trying to explain a phenomenon reveals to participants how little they actually understand about the policies, resulting in a reduction in self-reported understanding ratings.
“Participants who had high levels of confidence in their understanding of public policies after generating an explanation were more likely to endorse
