Content uploaded by Karen M. Douglas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen M. Douglas on Jun 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Uncorrected manuscript
Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories
Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas & Robbie M. Sutton,
University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
Keywords: conspiracy theories, conspiracism, contradiction, explanatory coherence
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Michael J. Wood
University of Kent
School of Psychology – Keynes College, University of Kent
Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, United Kingdom
mw337@kent.ac.uk
AUTHOR BIOS:
Michael J. Wood is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Kent, United Kingdom. His research
focuses on the psychology of conspiracy theories.
Karen M. Douglas is a Reader in Psychology at the University of Kent, United Kingdom. She
has published widely on topics such as language and stereotyping, persuasion, the psychology of
the internet and the psychology of conspiracy theories.
Robbie M. Sutton is a Reader in Psychology at the University of Kent, United Kingdom. His
research interests include the psychology of justice, gender, and intergroup processes.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE/FUNDING:
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article: School of Psychology, University of Kent.
Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories
Abstract:
Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: a self-sustaining worldview
comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even
endorsement of mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated. In Study 1
(n = 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they
believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that Osama
Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more
they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible
conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the
authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief
appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader
beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.
Article text:
A conspiracy theory is defined as a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations
working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal (Coady, 2006; Douglas &
Sutton, 2008; Goertzel, 1994). Popular contemporary examples include the theory that the 9/11
attacks were planned and carried out by elements within the American government (Kay, 2011)
and the belief that evidence of a causal link between autism and childhood vaccination is being
suppressed by an unscrupulous medical industry (Goertzel, 2010). Conspiracy theories are not
by definition false; indeed, many real conspiracies have come to light over the years. Suspicions
of President Nixon’s involvement in a burglary at the headquarters of the Democratic National
Committee began as a seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, but turned out to be true (Bale,
2007). However, conspiracy beliefs, even when wrong, are notoriously resistant to falsification,
and can take on the appearance of a “degenerating research program” (Clarke, 2002, p. 136),
with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming
evidence.
Spurred in part by the growth of new media, conspiracism has become a major subcultural
phenomenon. This shift has not gone unnoticed in academia. In recent decades there has been
an explosion of research into the psychology of belief in conspiracy theories. Much of this
research interest has focussed on the individual correlates of conspiracy belief, but perhaps the
most consistent finding in the work on the psychology of conspiracy theories is that belief in a
particular theory is strongly predicted by belief in others – even ostensibly unrelated ones
(Douglas & Sutton, 2008; Goertzel, 1994 ; Swami, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010;
Swami et al., 2011). For instance, someone who believes that the American government was
behind the 9/11 attacks is very likely to also believe that Princess Diana was deliberately
assassinated. One proposed explanation for this connection is that beliefs in conspiracy theories
somehow support one another (Goertzel, 1994). Even though the perpetrators may be different
in each case, the fact that one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in
near-perfect secrecy suggests that many such plots are possible. Over time, the view of the
world as a place ruled by conspiracies can lead to conspiracy becoming the default explanation
for any given event – a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a
mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system (Goertzel, 1994; Clarke,
2002; Swami et al., 2010; Swami et al., 2011).
However, some conspiracy theories emphatically do not support one another; indeed, many
provide mutually contradictory explanations for the same event. These contradictions among
conspiracy theories are the focus of the present article. For instance, the theories surrounding the
death of Princess Diana vary widely; some claim that she was killed by MI6, others allege that
she was killed by Mohammed al-Fayed’s business enemies, still others that she faked her own
death. How does a conspiracy-believing observer reconcile the presence of these competing,
mutually contradictory accounts? If beliefs in conspiracy theories are correlated with one
another because the theories are in direct agreement, one would not expect reliable correlations
between beliefs in theories that are mutually exclusive.
In the present research, we seek to determine whether the coherence of the conspiracist
belief system is driven not by direct relationships among individual theories, but by agreement
between individual theories and higher-order beliefs about the world. For instance, the idea that
authorities are engaged in motivated deception of the public would be a cornerstone of
conspiracist thinking due to its centrality in conspiracy theories. Someone who believes in a
significant number of conspiracy theories would naturally begin to see authorities as
fundamentally deceptive, and new conspiracy theories would seem more plausible in light of that
belief (Read, Snow and Simon, 2003; Simon, Snow, & Read, 2004). Indeed, the two conspiracy
theories mentioned above – an autism/vaccine connection and 9/11 as an inside job – both
revolve around that central proposition. Likewise, whether one believes that Princess Diana was
killed by MI6 or Mohammed Al-Fayed’s business enemies, belief in a cover-up would support
(and be supported by) both theories. In spite of that, the two theories contradict each other.
Would it be possible for their contradiction to be overruled by their coherence with a broader
conspiracist worldview, such that they display a positive correlation in endorsement?
Some literature on stereotyping suggests that coherence with strongly held worldviews
may well be sufficient to overwhelm contradictions between individual beliefs. Adorno (1954)
found strong positive correlations in endorsement between contradictory negative stereotypes of
Jews, such that highly prejudiced participants found them to be both too isolated from the rest of
society and too eager to participate in it. Adorno proposed that this paradoxical perception has
its roots in “a relatively blind hostility which is reflected in the stereotypy, self-contradiction, and
destructiveness” of anti-Jewish stereotyping (p. 76). In spite of their contradictory nature, both
stereotypes drew enough credibility from their one common element – a negative perception of
Jewish people – to end up with a strong positive association.
The same may well be true of
contradictory conspiracy theories; conspiracy advocates’ distrust of official narratives may be so
strong that many alternative theories are simultaneously endorsed in spite of any contractions
between them.
The phenomenon of global coherence overruling local contradictions is perhaps best
understood in the context of Thagard’s (1988) explanatory coherence model of social inference.
Explanatory coherence theory characterizes explanations and pieces of evidence about actors and
events as either coherent or incoherent with one another. These elements are represented by
nodes in a connectionist network. Activation flows from evidence nodes and higher-order
knowledge structures (Read, 1987) to the various explanations, which in turn excite or inhibit
one another depending on whether they are mutually coherent or contradictory. This process of
excitation and inhibition continues until the system reaches a stable equilibrium, at which point
the highly activated explanations are accepted and those with little activation are discarded.
Activation has been shown to flow the other way, as well: not only do evidence and higher-order
knowledge structures change one’s perception of explanations, emerging conclusions in the
network also change perceptions of evidence and alter broad worldviews (Read & Miller, 1993;
Read et al., 2003).
For instance, imagine that someone is heavily invested in conspiracism and strongly
believes in a wide variety of different conspiracy theories. A view of authority as fundamentally
deceptive is coherent with all of these theories, and as such draws activation from them until it
becomes a strongly held belief in itself. When a novel conspiracy theory is presented, it
immediately seems more credible because it agrees with this now strongly held view and
disagrees with the officially endorsed narrative. Such higher-order beliefs may be so strongly
held that any conspiracy theory that stands in opposition to the official narrative will gain some
degree of endorsement from someone who holds a conspiracist worldview, even if it directly
contradicts other conspiracy theories that they also find credible. In other words, a natural
consequence of the explanatory coherence approach to social explanation is an instantiation of
the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Indeed, this is a principle found explicitly in Heider's (1958) theory of psychological
balance, which shares a considerable common ground with explanatory coherence. In balance
theory, perceptions of an object or social actor are affected by its relationship with other actors
about which opinions already exist. For instance, people's evaluations of a novel product
endorsed by a known celebrity are more positive if they view the celebrity positively, or more
negative if their views of the celebrity are negative. In the case of conspiracy theories, we
propose that a similar mechanism is at work: officials are seen as deceptive, perhaps even
actively malevolent, so any explanation that they endorse is at a disadvantage, while alternative
explanations are more credible from the start. Explanatory coherence has been shown to
naturally instantiate many of the Gestalt principles on which balance theory is based (Read et al.,
2003), and others have noted the applicability of balance theory to the study of conspiracy belief,
such as Inglehart (1987)
.
Thus, we predict that for someone with a conspiracist worldview, nearly any theory that
assumes deception by officialdom in its explanation for a world event and stands in opposition to
the “mainstream” account will garner some agreement. This relationship may hold even to the
point that people who believe in a world governed by conspiracy are likely to endorse
contradictory conspiracy theories about the same topic. Just as Adorno (1954) found positive
correlations in endorsement of contradictory stereotypes, we expect to see positive relationships
between endorsement of contradictory conspiracy theories about the same event. For example,
the more that participants believe that a person at the centre of a death-related conspiracy theory,
such as Princess Diana or Osama Bin Laden, is still alive, the more they also tend to believe that
the same person was killed, so long as the alleged manner of death involves deception by
officialdom.
Study 1
We first elected to examine the relationship between contradictory conspiracy theories
regarding the same event by asking about several rival accounts of Princess Diana’s death.
Method
Participants
One hundred thirty seven undergraduate psychology students (83% female, mean age 20.4)
were recruited from a second-year research methods class at a British university. Participation
was voluntary and no compensation was given.
Materials and Procedure
For the purposes of the present study, we used the conspiracy theory belief scale used by
Douglas & Sutton (2011). The questionnaire was 17 items long and used a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree,”), to ascertain participants’ agreement with a
variety of different conspiracy theories. These included 9/11 as an inside job, global warming as
a hoax by scientists and politicians, and the idea of a fake moon landing. Crucially, there were
five items regarding the death of Princess Diana (Douglas & Sutton, 2008; 2011; α = .83):
1. One or more rogue “cells” in the British secret service constructed and carried out a plot
to kill Diana
2. There was an official campaign by MI6 to assassinate Diana, sanctioned by elements of
the establishment
3. Diana faked her own death so that she and Dodi could retreat into isolation
4. Business enemies of Dodi and his father Mohammed Al-Fayed assassinated Dodi, with
the death of Diana a cover-up for the operation
5. Diana had to be killed because the British government could not accept that the mother of
the future king was involved with a Muslim Arab
Not all of these items are mutually contradictory. Diana might conceivably have learned of
a plot to kill her and faked her own death in response, so #3 and #2 do not necessarily contradict
one another. #1 and #2 differ in the degree to which the operation to kill Diana was officially
sanctioned, and not all participants would necessarily pick up on that difference. Likewise, #5
indicates the existence of a plot to kill Diana but does not specify whether it was successful, so it
does not explicitly contradict any of the other theories. However, there are some unambiguous
contradictions. #1, #3, and #4 all propose different accounts of Diana’s apparent death: either
she was killed by a rogue cell of the British secret service (#1) or by business rivals of the
Fayeds (#4), or she faked her own death (#3). These three theories are mutually incompatible,
and will be the focus of analysis in the present study.
Results & Discussion
We first performed an exploratory principal components analysis to investigate the factor
structure of the scale. Based on a scree plot, we extracted two unrotated factors which together
accounted for 46.9% of scale variance. All items had loadings of at least .35 on the first factor in
the unrotated solution, suggesting that it represents generic conspiracy belief; the second factor
drew loadings only from the five items concerning climate change conspiracy theories, and thus
appears to be related to beliefs in these conspiracies in particular.
In line with this factor structure, and with previous findings of high correlations among
beliefs in different conspiracy theories, the scale showed reasonable reliability (α = .78). Most of
the questions were significantly correlated with one another despite covering different topics; for
instance, a belief that a rogue cell of MI6 was responsible for Diana’s death was correlated with
belief in theories that HIV was created in a laboratory (r = .39), that the moon landing was a
hoax (r = .34), and that governments are covering up the existence of aliens (r = .23) (all ps <
.01). In line with this general pattern, there was a network of significant positive relationships
among the majority of the Princess Diana conspiracy theories (see Table 1). People who
believed that Diana faked her own death were marginally more likely to also believe that she was
killed by a rogue cell of British Intelligence (r = .15, p = .075) and significantly more likely to
also believe that she was killed by business enemies of the Fayeds (r = .25, p = .003). Similarly,
participants who found it likely that the Fayeds’ business rivals were responsible for the death of
Diana were highly likely to also blame a rogue cell (r = .61, p < .001).
As can be seen in Table 1, the correlations in endorsement with the idea that Diana faked
her own death appear much lower than the rest, to the point that the only non-significant
correlation involves that theory. We believe this to be due to a floor effect rather than any sort of
response to contradiction; endorsement of the faked-own-death theory was extremely low in this
sample, with a mean of only 1.52 on a 7-point scale. This level of endorsement was significantly
lower than that of the other theories, for which agreement ranged from 2.51 (business rivals) to
2.98 (rogue cell) (all ps < .001). As an alternative approach to the relationship between the
faked-death theory and the rogue cell theory, we dichotomized responses to the faked-death item,
comparing those who gave the lowest possible response with those who responded more
positively. In accordance with the general pattern of results, participants who strongly disagreed
with the faked-death theory showed a lower level of agreement with the rogue cell theory (M =
2.75) than those who responded otherwise (M = 3.47; t(134) = -2.56, p = .01).
In line with our hypothesis, the results show mostly clear positive correlations in
endorsement of contradictory conspiracy theories. Intuitively, this does not make sense. One
would think that there ought to be a negative correlation between beliefs in contradictory
accounts of events – the more one believes in a particular theory, the less likely rival theories
will seem. One possible alternative explanation for these results is acquiescence bias:
participants may have simply replied in the same way to every question, resulting in positive
correlations across the scale regardless of the questions’ content. However, the scale included a
reverse-coded Diana conspiracy item which read, “The death of Princess Diana was an
accident.” Contrary to the acquiescence hypothesis, this item was consistently negatively
correlated with the rest of the scale, most notably r = -.75 with the rogue-cell item and r = -.65
with the MI6 item (both ps < .001).
These results suggest that those who distrust the official story of Diana’s death do not tend
to settle on a single conspiracist account as the only acceptable explanation; rather, they
simultaneously endorse several contradictory accounts. In Study 2, we set out to conceptually
replicate these findings in another setting, and also to ask why mutually contradictory conspiracy
theories are simultaneously endorsed.
Study 2
On May 2
nd
, 2011, it was reported in the news media that Osama bin Laden had been
killed in an American raid on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Conspiracy theories alleging
that bin Laden had not actually been killed in the raid immediately started to propagate
throughout the Internet and traditional media, mostly. Proponents claimed that their suspicions
were aroused by several actions of the Obama administration, including a refusal to release
pictures of bin Laden’s body and the decision to bury him at sea shortly after the raid.
The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden can be divided into two
major categories: those that propose he was already dead at the time of the raid, and those that
propose he is still alive (Kingsley & Jones, 2011). The former seems to have currency among
the 9/11 conspiracist Truth Movement; many “Truthers” allege that bin Laden died in 2000 or
even earlier, and his video appearances since then were in fact staged productions made with a
body double. The latter theory varies; some people believe that he is still at large, while others
think that he was captured alive and is being secretly held for interrogation by the CIA.
Naturally, these two theories are irreconcilable; bin Laden cannot be both alive and dead at the
same time. However, as in Study 1, we predicted that belief in the two conspiracy theories
would be positively correlated.
Further, in order to test the idea that perceived deception by authorities underlies the
positive correlation between contradictory conspiracy theories, we asked participants to what
degree they found the American government’s actions surrounding the raid to be suspicious and
indicative of a cover-up. This was intended to operationalize the central principle of
conspiracism outlined above: the idea that authorities are engaged in motivated deception. If
belief in a cover-up is indeed responsible for the positive association between contradictory
conspiracy theories, controlling for it should cause the correlation between the contradictory
theories to disappear.
Method
Participants
One hundred two undergraduate students (58% female, mean age 21) at a British university
were recruited to participate in the study between one and six weeks after the announcement of
bin Laden’s death. In exchange for their participation they received a randomized prize of either
a snack or a small monetary reward of GB£1.00 or 2.00 (~US$1.50 or 3.00).
Materials and Procedure
Participants were directed to read a brief summary of the official story of Osama bin
Laden’s death, including the details regarding the refusal to release pictorial evidence and the
burial at sea, followed by a short paragraph explaining that some people doubt the official story.
They were then asked about their opinion of the official story, followed by three conspiracy
items:
1. Osama bin Laden was killed in the American raid.
2. Osama bin Laden is still alive.
3. When the raid took place, Osama bin Laden was already dead.
4. The actions of the Obama administration indicate that they are hiding some important
or damaging piece of information about the raid.
Each of these statements was followed by a series of questions based on the composite
endorsement measure used by Douglas and Sutton (2011). This asked participants to rate their
agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 6 (“strongly agree”), as
well as to what degree they found the statements plausible, convincing, worth considering, and
coherent, again on a scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 6 (“very much”). These ratings were then
averaged to obtain a composite measure of endorsement for each statement (α > .87 for each
statement). While the original measure used by Douglas and Sutton also asked participants to
judge the interestingness of each statement, there is no contradiction in finding two rival theories
equally interesting, so we excluded interestingness from the present study in order to avoid
artificially inflating the relevant correlations.
Results & Discussion
The idea that bin Laden was killed in the raid enjoyed a high level of endorsement (M =
5.00, SD = 1.19), indicating a fairly high level of trust in the official story, though participants on
average found the Obama administration’s actions to be suspicious (M = 4.74, SD = 1.41).
Participants seemed less likely to endorse the idea that bin Laden is still alive (M = 3.05, SD =
1.39) or was already dead (M = 3.19, SD = 1.39). In a replication of our Study 1 result, a
correlational analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between composite endorsement
ratings of the two contradictory conspiracy theories, r = .21, p = .04.
We next examined the contribution of belief in a cover-up to the positive relationship
between the two contradictory theories using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis.
Endorsement of the cover-up item significantly predicted endorsement of the “bin Laden is still
alive” theory, β = .373, t(97) = 4.04, p < .001 (the same was true of the already-dead theory, β =
.346, t(97) = 3.63, p < .001). Adding endorsement of the contradictory theory “bin Laden was
already dead” to the regression equation, however, explained no additional variance (∆R
2
=
.006), and this theory was not itself a significant predictor, β = .086, t(96)= 0.86, p = .40. This
indicates that the correlation in endorsement of the two contradictory theories is explainable
entirely by their connection with belief in a deceptive cover-up by authority (see Figure 1). The
degree to which someone believes in a cover-up helps to determine their endorsement of the
official story, and of both conspiracy theories as well. This result is in line with our predictions,
and supports the idea that conspiracy theories are defined not by adherence to a particular
alternative account, but by opposition to the official story and a belief that deception is taking
place.
General Discussion
While it has been known for some time that belief in one conspiracy theory appears to be
associated with belief in others, only now do we know that this can even apply to conspiracy
theories that are mutually contradictory. This finding supports our contention that the
monological nature of conspiracism (Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010; Swami et al., 2011) is
driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by the coherence of each
theory with higher-order beliefs that support the idea of conspiracy in general. As demonstrated
in Study 2, perceived deception by authority is one such belief, and it is likely that there are
many others as well. For those who hold such beliefs, the specifics of a conspiracy theory do not
matter as much as the fact that it is a conspiracy theory at all.
There are strong parallels between this conception of a monological belief system and
Adorno’s (1954) work on prejudice and authoritarianism. In an attempt to explain the strong
positive correlations between contradictory anti-Semitic beliefs, Adorno suggested that
incompatibilities between beliefs at a local level are dwarfed by coherence with broader beliefs
about the world - “nuclear ideas” which “tend to ‘pull in’ numerous other opinions and attitudes
and thus to form a broad ideological system.” (p. 92). Such a system “provides a rationale for
any specific idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions” (p.
93). Our findings support an equivalent explanation for beliefs in contradictory conspiracy
theories, with a belief in deceptive officialdom as the nuclear idea in question.
If Adorno’s explanation for contradictory anti-Semitic beliefs can indeed be applied to
conspiracy theories, conspiracist beliefs might be most accurately viewed as not only
monological, but also ideological in nature. Just as an orthodox Marxist might interpret major
world events as arising inevitably from the forces of history, a conspiracist would see the same
events as carefully orchestrated steps in a plot for global domination. Conceptualizing
conspiracism as a coherent ideology, rather than as a cluster of beliefs in individual theories, may
be a fruitful approach in the future when examining its connection to ideologically relevant
variables such as social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism.
Although we have demonstrated the importance of a belief in deception by authority as an
important antecedent of conspiracy belief and a partial explanation for correlations between
contradictory theories, there are certainly other broad beliefs which could make a similar
contribution. For instance, conspiracy theories would seem much more plausible to those with a
belief in the effectiveness of intimidation and bribery. In a more abstract sense, a belief in the
essential malevolence of officialdom - or in the specific malevolence of a certain powerful entity
- would make many conspiracies seem more likely. The social element must not be neglected
either; many conspiracy theories are associated with specific groups or even organized
movements, such as the 9/11 Truth Movement. Clarke (2007) found a trend of increasing
vagueness in these modern conspiracist communities, which he characterised as a reaction to the
antagonistic atmosphere of Internet discourse. Our results suggest an alternative possibility: a
genuine uncertainty within individuals regarding the true nature of the conspiracy behind a
particular event (beyond the fact that there was one), and a willingness to consider and even
endorse mutually contradictory accounts as long as they stand in opposition to the officially
sanctioned narrative. There may also be an element of self-presentation and conflict avoidance
in the vagueness observed by Clarke: if multiple contradictory theories are simultaneously
believed by many in a conspiracist community, endorsing one in particular is tantamount to
denying the others, and may provoke a backlash. In any event, the development of conspiracy
theories almost certainly owes a great deal to social engagement and discussion of alternative
narratives, and the dynamics of conspiracist communities may be a fruitful avenue for future
investigation with reference to previous work on opinion-based groups (e.g. Musgrove &
McGarty, 2008).
Conspiracist belief systems may also be well-captured by connectionist models of social
inference such as Thagard’s (1989) explanatory coherence model (ECHO). ECHO has been
shown to accurately predict the degree to which higher-order beliefs about social actors affect
judgements of their actions as sinister or innocent, honest or deceptive (Read & Miller, 1993).
However, there has been little or no investigation into the ability of ECHO to model the
influence of broad worldviews. Based on the present research, one would expect that when
broad beliefs are relevant to the interpretation of a particular situation, they serve as a constraint
on the conclusions that are likely to be drawn from it in the same way as specific beliefs about
the actors and situations involved. A conspiracist belief system consisting of many such beliefs
would inhibit the acceptance of official narratives, but may not discriminate among several
different conspiracy theories. Some might be discarded, but even contradictory theories might
be simultaneously accepted. Almost any account of events which accords with the broader
beliefs in question is likely to garner some endorsement by adherents of a conspiracist
worldview. Modelling such a network might provide an instructive insight into the processes
underlying the development of conspiracist beliefs, and of other beliefs influenced by
superordinate ideological considerations.
It must be noted that not all conspiracy theories fall under the “deceptive officialdom”
umbrella. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are a notable and historically important exception;
instead of alleging abuse of power by elites, historical theories of Jewish conspiracy usually
detailed supposed attempts by a minority to seize power for themselves (Graumann, 1987). It
would be instructive to examine whether beliefs in such conspiracies are correlated with belief in
those that fit more closely into the “deceptive officialdom” template, and if such relationships are
mediated to the same degree by endorsement of that central belief.
In any case, the evidence we have gathered in the present study supports the idea that
conspiracism constitutes a monological belief system, drawing its coherence from central beliefs
such as the conviction that authorities and officials engage in massive deception of the public to
achieve their malevolent goals. Connectivity with this central idea lends support to any
individual conspiracy theory, even to the point that mutually contradictory theories fail to show a
negative correlation in belief. Believing that Osama bin Laden is still alive is apparently no
obstacle to believing that he has been dead for years.
References:
Bale, J.M. (2007). Political paranoia v. political realism: On distinguishing between bogus
conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics. Patterns of Prejudice, 41, 45-60.
Clarke, S. (2002). Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing. Philosophy of the Social
Sciences, 32, 131-150.
Clarke, S. (2007). Conspiracy theories and the Internet: Controlled demolition and arrested
development. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 4, 167-180
Coady, D. (2006). Conspiracy theories: The philosophical debate. Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing.
Douglas, K.M., & Sutton, R.M. (2008). The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and
actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Journal of Social
Psychology, 148, 210-222.
Douglas & Sutton (2011). Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is
influenced by personal willingness to conspire. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50,
542-552.
Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 15, 731–742.
Goertzel, T. (2010). Conspiracy theories in science. EMBO Reports, 11, 493-499.
Graumann, C.F. (1987). Conspiracy: history and social psychology - a synopsis. In C.F.
Graumann and S. Moscovici (Eds.), Changing conceptions of conspiracy (pp. 245-251).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Grzesiak-Feldman, M., & Suszek, H. (2008). Conspiracy stereotyping and perceptions of group
entitativity of Jews, Germans, Arabs and homosexuals by Polish students. Psychological
Reports, 102, 755-758.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kay, J. (2011). Among the truthers: A journey through America’s conspiracist underground.
New York: HarperCollins.
Inglehart, R. (1987). Extremist political positions and perceptions of conspiracy. In C.F.
Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.) Changing conceptions of conspiracy (pp. 231–244). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Kingsley, P., & Jones, S. (2011, May 5). Osama bin Laden death: The conspiracy theories. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/05/osama-bin-
laden-conspiracy-theories
Musgrove, L., & McGarty, C. (2008) Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of
collective emotional responses and support for pro- and anti-war action. Social Psychology,
39, 37-47.
Read, S. J. (1987). Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to causal
reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 288-302.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L.C. (1993). Rapist or "regular guy": Explanatory coherence in the
construction of mental models of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,
526-540.
Read, S. J., Snow, C. J., & Simon, D. (2003). Constraint satisfaction processes in social
reasoning. In The Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Cognitive Science Society
Conference.
Rowe, K. (Producer), Bermas, J. (Producer), Brown, M. (Producer), & Avery, D. (Director)
(2005). Loose Change [Motion Picture]. United States: Microcinema International.
Simon, D., Snow, C.J., & Read, S. J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories:
Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 814-837.
Smith, T.C., & Novella, S.P. (2007). HIV denial in the Internet era. PLoS Medicine, 4, 1312-
1316.
Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Unanswered questions: A
preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11
conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 749-761.
Swami, V., Coles, R., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Furnham, A., Rehim, S., & Voracek, M. (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.
Table 1. Correlations between endorsement of Princess Diana conspiracy theories in Study 1.
Official MI6
campaign to kill
Diana
Dodi and Diana
killed by Al-
Fayeds’ business
enemies
Diana had to die
prevent her from
marrying an Arab
Diana faked her
own death
Diana killed by
rogue cell of
British
Intelligence
.749 *** .614 *** .670 *** 0.15
†
Official MI6
campaign to kill
Diana
1 .660 *** .622 *** .206 *
Dodi and Diana
killed by Al-
Fayeds’ business
enemies
1 .607 *** .253 ***
Diana had to die
to prevent her
from marrying an
Arab
1 .242 **
Note: *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05,
†
p < .10. Correlations between mutually
contradictory items are bolded. All correlation coefficients are Pearson r.
Figure 1. Illustration of the observed correlations in endorsement of Study 2 items. The two
conspiracy theories display a significant zero-order correlation (above), but have no significant
direct relationship when belief in a cover-up is taken into account (below).
