Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The role of conspiracy mentality in denial of science and susceptibility to viral deception about science

  • Asheley R. Landrum (a1) and Alex Olshansky (a1)

Abstract

Members of the public can disagree with scientists in at least two ways: people can reject well-established scientific theories and they can believe fabricated, deceptive claims about science to be true. Scholars examining the reasons for these disagreements find that some individuals are more likely than others to diverge from scientists because of individual factors such as their science literacy, political ideology, and religiosity. This study builds on this literature by examining the role of conspiracy mentality in these two phenomena. Participants were recruited from a national online panel (N = 513) and in person from the first annual Flat Earth International Conference (N = 21). We found that conspiracy mentality and science literacy both play important roles in believing viral and deceptive claims about science, but evidence for the importance of conspiracy mentality in the rejection of science is much more mixed.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence: Asheley R. Landrum, College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University, 3003 15th St., Lubbock, TX 79409. Email: Asheley.Landrum@ttu.edu

References

Hide All
1Pew Research Center, “Public and scientists’ views on science and society,” January 29, 2015, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/, accessed June 20, 2019.
2Carter, K., “Does ‘cupping’ do Olympic athletes any good—and does it matter if it doesn’t?,” Guardian, August 8, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2016/aug/08/does-cupping-do-olympic-athletes-any-good, accessed June 20, 2019.
3Doheny, K., “What’s behind the gluten-free trend?,” WebMD, September 16, 2016, https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/celiac-disease/news/20160916/whats-behind-gluten-free-trend#1, accessed June 20, 2019.
4Gorski, D., “The Oprah-fication of medicine,” Science-Based Medicine, June 1, 2009, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-oprah-fication-of-medicine/, accessed June 20, 2019.
5U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “U.S. public health service recommendation for fluoride concentration in drinking water for the prevention of dental caries,” Public Health Reports, 2015, 130(4): 318331.
6Tagliabue, G., “The necessary ‘GMO’ denialism and scientific consensus,” Journal of Science Communication, 2016, 15(4): Y01, https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15040401.
7Valdez, A., “Everything you need to know about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica,” Wired, March 23, 2018, https://www.wired.com/story/wired-facebook-cambridge-analytica-coverage/, accessed June 20, 2019.
8Kata, A., “Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm—An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement,” Vaccine, 2012, 30(25): 37783789, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.
9Bauer, M., Allum, N., and Miller, S., “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda,” Public Understanding of Science, 2007, 16: 7995, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287.
10National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016), https://doi.org/10.17226/23595.
11Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., and Mandel, G., “The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks,” Nature Climate Change, 2012, 2: 732735, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547.
12Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., and Slovic, P., “Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government,” Behavioural Public Policy, 2017, 1(1): 5486.
13Kunda, S., “The case for motivated reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 1990, 108(3): 480498, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
14Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., and Cichocka, A., “The psychology of conspiracy theories,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2017, 26(6): 538–42, https://doi.org/10.1177/096372147718261.
15Clarke, S., “Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2002, 32(2): 131150, https://doi.org/10.1177/004931032002001.
16Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W. G., Craig, T., and Gregory, W. L., “Beliefs in conspiracies,” Political Psychology, 1999, 20 (3), 637647, https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00160.
17Green, R. and Douglas, K. M., “Anxious attachment and belief in conspiracies,” Personality and Individual Differences, 2018, 125: 3037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12023.
18Aupers, S., “‘Trust no one’: Modernization, paranoia and conspiracy culture,” European Journal of Communication, 2012, 27(1): 2234, https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111433566.
19Butler, L. D., Koopman, C., and Zimbardo, P., “The psychological impact of viewing the film ‘JFK’: Emotions, beliefs, and political behavioral intentions,” Political Psychology, 1995, 16(2): 237257, https://doi.org/10.2307/3791831.
2020 Jensen, T., “Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy beliefs,” Public Policy Polling, April 2, 13, https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs/, accessed June 20, 2019.
21Hofstadter, R., The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays (New York: Knopf, 1965).
22Radnitz, S. and Underwood, P., “Is belief in conspiracy theories pathological? A survey experiment on the cognitive roots of extreme suspicion,” British Journal of Political Science, 2017, 47(1): 113129, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000556.
23Haspel, T., “Genetically modified foods: What is and isn’t true,” Washington Post, October, 15, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/genetically-modified-foods-what-is-and-isnt-true/2013/10/15/40e4fd58-3132-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html?utm_term=.be6e5899d1e6, accessed June 20, 2019.
24Blaskiewicz, R., “The Big Pharma conspiracy theory,” Medical Writing, 2013, 22(4): 259261, http://doi.org/10.1179/2047480613Z.000000000142.
25Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., and Gignac, G. E., “NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science,” Psychological Science, 2013, 24(5): 622633, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686.
26Sussman, B., Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam (Washington, DC: WND Books, 2010).
27Uscinski, J. E. and Olivella, S., “The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change,” Research & Politics, 2017, 4(4): 19, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017743105.
28Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T., “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1986, 19: 123205, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.
29Landrum, A. R., Eaves, B., and Shafto, P., “Learning to trust and trusting to learn: A theoretical framework,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2015, 19(3): 109111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.007.
30Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., and Braman, D., “Cultural cognition of scientific consensus,” Journal of Risk Research, 2011, 14(2): 147174, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.
31Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L., and Farhart, C. E., “Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust,” American Journal of Political Science, 2016, 60(4): 824844, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12234.
32Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., and Imhoff, R., “Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire,” Frontiers in Psychology, 2013, 4: Article ID 225, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225.
33Darwin, H., Neave, N., and Holmes, J., “Belief in conspiracy theories: The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy,” Personality and Individual Differences, 2011, 50(8): 12891293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.027.
34Bruder, M. and Manstead, A. S. R., “Questionnaire on conspiracy theories,” 2009, http://www.conspiracytheory.martinbruder.com/en/, accessed June 20, 2019.
35Wood, M. J., Douglas, K. M., and Sutton, R. M., “Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2012, 3(6): 767773, https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786.
36Swami, V., Coles, R., Stieger, S., Pietsching, J., Furnham, A., Rehim, S., and Voracek, M., “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, 2011, 102(3): 443463, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02004.x.
37Imhoff, R. and Bruder, M., “Speaking (un-)truth to power: conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude,” European Journal of Personality, 2014, 28(1), 2543, https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1930.
38Koerth-Baker, M., “Why rational people buy into conspiracy theories,” New York Times Magazine, May 21, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html (accessed June 20, 2019).
39Swami, V., Chamorro‐Premuzic, T., and Furnham, A., “Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2010, 24(6): 749761, https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1583.
40Goertzel, T., “Belief in conspiracy theories,” Political Psychology, 1994, 15(4): 731742, https://doi.org/10.2307/3791630.
41Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., and Oberauer, K., “The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science,” PLOS ONE, 2013, 10(8): e75637, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134773.
42Dixon, R. M. and Jones, J. A., “Conspiracist ideation as a predictor of climate-science rejection: An alternative analysis,” Psychological Science, 2015, 26(5): 664666, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614566469.
43Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., and Oberauer, K., “The robust relationship between conspiracism and denial of (climate) science,” Psychological Science2015, 26(5): 667670, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614568432.
44Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., et al., “The science of fake news: Addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort,” Science, 2018, 359(6380): 10941096, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aa02998.
45Annenberg Public Policy Center, “Jamieson offers new name for fake news: ‘Viral deception’ or VD,” March 6, 2017, https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/on-cnn-jamieson-offers-new-name-for-fake-news-viral-deception-or-v-d/, accessed June 20, 2019.
46Valkenburg, P. M. and Peter, J., “The differential susceptibility to media effects model,” Journal of Communication, 2013, 63: 221243.
47Pennycook, G. and Rand, D. G., “Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning,” Cognition, 2019, 188: 3950, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011.
48Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., and Cannon, T. D., “Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism and reduced analytical thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2019, 8(1): 108117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005.
49Childs, O., “Don’t believe the hype—10 persistent cancer myths debunked,” Cancer Research UK, March 24, 2014, https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/24/dont-believe-the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/#Big-Pharma, accessed June 21, 2019.
50National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016), https://doi.org/10.17226/23596.
51Society of Toxicology, “SOT issue statement: Food and feed safety of genetically engineered food crops,” November 2017, https://www.toxicology.org/pubs/statements/SOT_Safety_of_GE_Food_Crops_Issue_Statement_FINAL.pdf, accessed June 21, 2019.
52Adams, M., “Zika virus outbreak linked to release of genetically engineered mosquitoes…disastrous unintended consequences now threaten life across the Americas,” Natural News, February 1, 2016, https://www.naturalnews.com/052824_Zika_virus_genetically_engineered_mosquitoes_unintended_consequences.html, accessed June 21, 2019.
53RT, “GMO mosquitoes could be cause of Zika, critics say,” January 30, 2016, https://www.rt.com/news/330728-gmo-mosquitoes-zika-virus/, accessed June 21, 2019.
54Schipani, V., “GMOs didn’t cause Zika outbreak,” FactCheck.org, February 23, 2016, https://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/gmos-didnt-cause-zika-outbreak/, accessed June 21, 2019.
55DeStefano, F., “Vaccines and autism: Evidence does not support a causal association,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2007, 82(6): 756759, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.clpt.6100407.
56Kalkbrenner, A., Schmidt, R. J., and Penlesky, A. C., “Environmental chemical exposures and Autism spectrum disorders: A review of the epidemiological evidence,” Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 2014, 44(10): 277-318, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.06.001.
57Adams, M., “Autism, mercury, thimerosal and vaccines: Natural News releases large collection of scientific knowledge that’s been suppressed by the FDA, CDC, and pharma-controlled media,” Natural News, March 5, 2017, https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-03-05-autism-mercury-thimerosal-and-vaccines-natural-news-releases-collection-of-scientific-knowledge-thats-been-suppressed.html, accessed June 21, 2019.
58Lilley, J., “Vaccines cause autism, says confidential document from corrupt drug company,” Natural News, April 23, 2015, https://www.naturalnews.com/049458_autism_infanrix_vaccine_glaxosmithkline.html, accessed June 21, 2019.
59Kahan, D. M., “‘Ordinary science intelligence’: A science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change,” Journal of Risk Research, 2017, 20(8): 9951016, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067.
60Rizopoulos, D., “ltm: A package for latent variable modeling and item response analysis,” Journal of Statistical Software, 2006, 17(5): 125, http://www.jstatsoft.org/v17/i05/.
61Lindeman, R. H. Merenda, P. F. and Gold, R. Z., Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1980).
62Grömping, U., “Relative importance for linear regression in R: The package relaimpo,” Journal of Statistical Software, 2006, 17(1): 127, https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v017i01/v17i01.pdf.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Landrum and Olshansky supplementary material
Landrum and Olshansky supplementary material 1

 Word (1.3 MB)
1.3 MB

The role of conspiracy mentality in denial of science and susceptibility to viral deception about science

  • Asheley R. Landrum (a1) and Alex Olshansky (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed