A flowchart showing Joseph Heller's original catch-22
A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations. The term was first used by Joseph Heller in his 1961 novel Catch-22.
Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or
procedures that an individual is subject to, but has no control over,
because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a
situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had
by not being in need of it (e.g., the only way to qualify for a loan is
to prove to the bank that you do not need a loan). One connotation of
the term is that the creators of the "catch-22" situation have created
arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.
Origin and meaning
Joseph Heller coined the term in his 1961 novel Catch-22, which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II.
The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army surgeon
who invokes "Catch-22" to explain why any pilot requesting mental
evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and
thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in
creating the request and thus cannot be declared insane. This phrase
also means a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no
escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a
concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and
immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr
was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon
as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more
missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't,
but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy
and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
Different formulations of "Catch-22" appear in the novel.
The term is applied to loopholes and quirks of the military system,
always with the implication that rules are inaccessible to and slanted
against those lower in the hierarchy. In chapter 6, Yossarian is told
that Catch-22 requires him to do anything his commanding officer tells him to do, regardless of whether these orders contradict orders from the officer's superiors.
In a final episode, Catch-22 is described to Yossarian by an old woman recounting an act of violence by soldiers,
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
"What the hell are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in
bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the
hell told you it was Catch-22?"
"The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were
crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and
pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why
are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All
they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22?
What is Catch-22?"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"
"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22."
According to literature professor Ian Gregson, the old
woman's narrative defines "Catch-22" more directly as the "brutal
operation of power", stripping away the "bogus sophistication" of the
earlier scenarios.
Other appearances in the novel
Besides referring to an unsolvable logical dilemma,
Catch-22 is invoked to explain or justify the military bureaucracy. In
the first chapter, it requires Yossarian to sign his name to letters he
censors while he is confined to a hospital bed. One clause mentioned in
chapter 10 closes a loophole in promotions, which one private had been
exploiting to re-attain the attractive rank of private first class after any promotion. Through courts-martial for going AWOL,
he would be busted back to private but Catch-22 limited the number of
times he could do this before being sent to the stockade.
At another point in the book, a prostitute explains to
Yossarian that she cannot marry him because he is crazy, and she will
never marry a crazy man. She considers any man crazy who would marry a
woman who is not a virgin. This closed logic loop clearly illustrated
Catch-22 because by her logic, all men who refuse to marry her are sane
and thus she would consider marriage; but as soon as a man agrees to
marry her, he becomes crazy for wanting to marry a non-virgin, and is
instantly rejected.
Captain Black attempts to press Milo into depriving Major Major
of food as a consequence of not signing a loyalty oath that Major Major
was never given an opportunity to sign in the first place. Captain
Black asks Milo, "You're not against Catch-22, are you?"
In chapter 40, Catch-22 forces Colonels Korn and Cathcart
to promote Yossarian to Major and ground him rather than simply sending
him home. They fear that if they do not, others will refuse to fly, just
as Yossarian did.
Heller originally wanted to call the phrase (and hence, the
book) by other numbers, but he and his publishers eventually settled on
22. The number has no particular significance; it was chosen more or
less for euphony. The title was originally Catch-18, but Heller changed it after the popular Mila 18 was published a short time beforehand.
Usage
The term "catch-22" has filtered into common usage in the
English language. In a 1975 interview, Heller said the term would not
translate well into other languages.
James E. Combs and Dan D. Nimmo suggest that the idea of a
"catch-22" has gained popular currency because so many people in modern
society are exposed to frustrating bureaucratic logic. They write of the
rules of high school and colleges that:
This bogus democracy that can be
overruled by arbitrary fiat is perhaps a citizen's first encounter with
organizations that may profess 'open' and libertarian values, but in
fact are closed and hierarchical systems. Catch-22 is an organizational
assumption, an unwritten law of informal power that exempts the
organization from responsibility and accountability, and puts the
individual in the absurd position of being excepted for the convenience
or unknown purposes of the organization.[5]
Along with George Orwell's "doublethink", "Catch-22" has become one of the best-recognized ways to describe the predicament of being trapped by contradictory rules.[9]
It is time for the scientific
community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot
be two kinds of medicine—conventional and alternative. There is only
medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not,
medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a
treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it
was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be
reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions,
speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence.
Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less
rigorous than that required for conventional treatments.
This definition has been described by Robert L. Park as a logical Catch-22 which ensures that any complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) method which is proven to work "would no longer be CAM, it would simply be medicine."
U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett referred to qualified immunity,
which requires a violation of constitutional rights to have been
previously established in order for a victim to claim damages, as a
Catch-22: "Section 1983 meets Catch-22. Important constitutional
questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet
unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude
there's no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability. An Escherian Stairwell. Heads government wins, tails plaintiff loses."
Logic
The archetypalcatch-22, as formulated by Joseph Heller, involves the case of John Yossarian, a U.S. Army Air Forcesbombardier, who wishes to be grounded from combat flight. This will only happen if he is evaluated by the squadron's flight surgeon and found "unfit to fly". "Unfit" would be any pilot who is willing to fly such dangerous missions, as one would have to be mad to volunteer for possible death. To be evaluated, he must request
the evaluation, an act that is considered sufficient proof for being
declared sane. These conditions make it impossible to be declared
"unfit".
The "Catch-22" is that "anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy". Pilots who request a mental fitness evaluation are
sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an
evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one and
thus can never be found insane, meaning he must also fly in combat.
Catch-22 ensures that no pilot can ever be grounded for being insane
even if he is.
A logical formulation of this situation is:
1.
For a person to be excused from flying on the grounds of insanity (E),
he must both be insane (I) and have requested an evaluation (R).
The philosopher Laurence Goldstein argues that the
"airman's dilemma" is logically not even a condition that is true under
no circumstances; it is a "vacuousbiconditional" that is ultimately meaningless. Goldstein writes:
The catch
is this: what looks like a statement of the conditions under which an
airman can be excused flying dangerous missions reduces not to the
statement
(i) 'An airman can be excused flying dangerous missions if and only if Cont' (where 'Cont' is a contradiction)
(which could be a mean way of disguising an unpleasant truth), but to the worthlessly empty announcement
(ii) 'An airman can be excused flying dangerous missions if and
only if it is not the case that an airman can be excused flying
dangerous missions'
If the catch were (i), that would not be so bad—an airman would at least
be able to discover that under no circumstances could he avoid combat
duty. But Catch-22 is worse—a welter of words that amounts to nothing;
it is without content, it conveys no information at all.
Disinformation is false or misleading information deliberately spread to deceive people, or to secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm. Disinformation is an orchestrated adversarial activity in which actors employ strategic deceptions and media manipulation tactics to advance political, military, or commercial goals. Disinformation is implemented through coordinated campaigns that "weaponize multiple rhetorical strategies and forms of knowing—including not only falsehoods but also truths, half-truths, and value judgements—to exploit and amplify culture wars and other identity-driven controversies."
In contrast, misinformation refers to inaccuracies that stem from inadvertent error. Misinformation can be used to create disinformation when known misinformation is purposefully and intentionally disseminated. "Fake news" has sometimes been categorized as a type of disinformation, although scholars distinguish between the two concepts. Some researchers have cautioned against using the term in academic
writing have because of its lack of precision and its contested use in
public and political discourse regarding news coverage or information. Others note that it continues to be used both in reference to
demonstrably false or misleading information and more broadly in
political communication, where its meaning and implications remain
debated.
Etymology
The Etymology of Disinformation by H. Newman as published in The Journal of Information Warfare in 2021. Elements of the word disinformation have their origins in Proto-Indo-European
language family. The Latin 'dis' and 'in' and can both be considered to
have Proto-Indo-European roots, 'forma' is considerably more obscure.
The green box in the figure highlights the origin 'forma' is uncertain,
however, it may have its roots in the Aristotelian concept of μορφή (morphe) where something becomes a 'thing' when it has 'form' or substance.
The English word disinformation comes from the application of the Latin prefix dis- to information
making the meaning "reversal or removal of information". The rarely
used word had appeared with this usage in print at least as far back as
1887. Some consider it a loan translation of the Russian дезинформация, transliterated as dezinformatsiya, apparently derived from the title of a KGB black propaganda department. Soviet planners in the 1950s defined disinformation as "dissemination
(in the press, on the radio, etc.) of false reports intended to mislead public opinion."
Disinformation first made an appearance in dictionaries in 1985, specifically, Webster's New College Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. In 1986, the term disinformation was not defined in Webster's New World Thesaurus or New Encyclopædia Britannica. After the Soviet term became widely known in the 1980s, native speakers
of English broadened the term as "any government communication (either
overt or covert) containing intentionally false and misleading material,
often combined selectively with true information, which seeks to
mislead and manipulate either elites or a mass audience."
By 1990, use of the term disinformation had fully established itself in the English language within the lexicon of politics. By 2001, the term disinformation had come to be known as simply a more civil phrase for saying someone was lying. Stanley B. Cunningham wrote in his 2002 book The Idea of Propaganda that disinformation had become pervasively used as a synonym for propaganda.
Operationalization
The Shorenstein Center
at Harvard University defines disinformation research as an academic
field that studies "the spread and impacts of misinformation,
disinformation, and media manipulation", including "how it spreads
through online and offline channels, and why people are susceptible to
believing bad information, and successful strategies for mitigating its
impact". According to a 2023 research article published in New Media & Society, disinformation circulates on social media through deception campaigns implemented in multiple ways including: astroturfing, conspiracy theories, clickbait, culture wars, echo chambers, hoaxes, fake news, propaganda, pseudoscience, and rumors.
Glossary of key terms related to disinformation and misinformation
Moral tales featuring durable stories of intruders incurring boundary transgressions and their dire consequences
In order to distinguish between similar terms, including
misinformation and malinformation, scholars collectively agree on the
definitions for each term as follows: (1) disinformation is the
strategic dissemination of false information with the intention to cause
public harm; (2) misinformation represents the unintentional spread of false information; and (3) malinformation is factual information disseminated with the intention to cause harm, these terms are abbreviated 'DMMI'.
In 2019, Camille François devised the "ABC" framework of understanding different modalities of online disinformation:
Manipulative Actors, who
"engage knowingly and with clear intent in viral deception campaigns"
that are "covert, designed to obfuscate the identity and intent of the
actor orchestrating them." Examples include personas such as Guccifer 2.0, Internet trolls, state media, and military operatives.
Deceptive Behavior, which "encompasses
the variety of techniques viral deception actors may use to enhance and
exaggerate the reach, virality and impact of their campaigns." Examples
include troll farms, Internet bots, astroturfing, and "paid engagement".
In 2020, the Brookings Institution proposed amending this framework to include Distribution, defined by the "technical protocols that enable, constrain, and shape user behavior in a virtual space". Similarly, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace proposed adding Degree ("distribution of the content ... and the audiences it reaches") and Effect ("how much of a threat a given case poses").
Comparisons with propaganda
Whether and to what degree disinformation and propaganda overlap is subject to debate. Some (like U.S. Department of State)
define propaganda as the use of non-rational arguments to either
advance or undermine a political ideal, and use disinformation as an
alternative name for undermining propaganda, while others consider them to be separate concepts altogether. One popular distinction holds that disinformation also describes
politically motivated messaging designed explicitly to engender public
cynicism, uncertainty, apathy, distrust, and paranoia, all of which
disincentivize citizen engagement and mobilization for social or
political change.
Disinformation is primarily carried out by government intelligence agencies, but has also been used by non-governmental organizations and businesses. Front groups are a form of disinformation, as they mislead the public about their true objectives and who their controllers are. Most recently, disinformation has been deliberately spread through social media in the form of "fake news", disinformation masked as legitimate news articles and meant to mislead readers or viewers. Disinformation may include distribution of forgeddocuments, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading dangerous rumours and fabricatedintelligence. Use of these tactics can lead to blowback, however, causing such unintended consequences such as defamation lawsuits or damage to the dis-informer's reputation.
Disinformation can spread with greater ease in situations
where there is a lack of credible information on a topic, such as a
crisis. The implications of this were seen after the 2024 Southport stabbings,
where the spread of disinformation regarding the killer's background
was fuelled by reporting restrictions, meaning that there were no facts
to counter the disinformation. This then led to the 2024 United Kingdom riots.
Worldwide
Disinformation has been identified as a significant challenge, undermining public trust and the factual basis for public debate. Studies have found that false information often spreads faster and more
widely online than accurate information. Empirical research has also
links disinformation to political polarisation, democratic erosion, and
regime resilience in authoritarian contexts.
Use of disinformation as a Soviet tactical weapon started in 1923, when it became a tactic used in the Soviet political warfare called active measures.
Russian disinformation
Russian disinformation campaigns have occurred in many countries. For example, disinformation campaigns led by Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch, have been reported in several African countries. Russia denies that it uses disinformation to influence public opinion. Often Russian campaigns aim to disrupt domestic politics within Europe
and the United States in an attempt to weaken the West due to its
long-standing commitment to fight back against "Western imperialism" and
shift the balance of world power to Russia and her allies (the Second World during the Cold War era). According to the Voice of America,
Russia seeks to promote American isolationism, border security concerns
and racial tensions within the United States through its disinformation
campaigns.
Chinese disinformation
Spamouflage
(also known under the names Dragonbridge, Spamouflage Dragon, Storm
1376 and Taizi Flood) is an online propaganda and disinformation
operation that has been using a network of social media accounts to make
posts in favor of the Chinese Communist Party and government of the People's Republic of China and harass dissidents and journalists overseas since 2017.Beginning in the early 2020s, Spamouflage accounts also began making posts about American and Taiwanese politics. It is widely believed that the Chinese government, particularly the Ministry of Public Security, is behind the network. Spamouflage has increasingly used generative artificial intelligence for influence operations. The campaign has largely failed to receive views from real users, although it has attracted some organic engagement using new tactics.
The United States Intelligence Community appropriated use of the term disinformation in the 1950s from the Russian dezinformatsiya, and began to use similar strategies, starting during Cold War, and in conflict with other nations. The New York Times reported in 2000 that during the CIA's effort to substitute Mohammed Reza Pahlavi for then-Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh, the CIA placed fictitious stories in the local newspaper. Reuters documented how, subsequent to the 1979 Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan during the Soviet–Afghan War,
the CIA put false articles in newspapers of Islamic-majority countries,
inaccurately stating that Soviet embassies had "invasion day
celebrations". Reuters noted a former U.S. intelligence officer said they would attempt to gain the confidence of reporters and use them as secret agents, to affect a nation's politics by way of their local media.
In October 1986, the term gained increased currency in the U.S. when it was revealed that two months previously, the Reagan Administration had engaged in a disinformation campaign against then-leader of Libya Muammar Gaddafi. White House representative Larry Speakes said reports of a planned attack on Libya as first broken by The Wall Street Journal on August 25, 1986, were "authoritative", and other newspapers including The Washington Post then wrote articles saying this was factual. U.S. State Department representative Bernard Kalb
resigned from his position in protest over the disinformation campaign,
and said: "Faith in the word of America is the pulse beat of our
democracy."
The executive branch of the Reagan administration kept watch on disinformation campaigns through three yearly publications by the Department of State: Active Measures: A Report on the Substance and Process of Anti-U.S. Disinformation and Propaganda Campaigns (1986); Report on Active Measures and Propaganda, 1986–87 (1987); and Report on Active Measures and Propaganda, 1987–88 (1989).
According to a report by Reuters, the United States ran a propaganda campaign to spread disinformation about the Sinovac Chinese COVID-19 vaccine,
including using fake social media accounts to spread the disinformation
that the Sinovac vaccine contained pork-derived ingredients and was
therefore haram under Islamic law. Reuters said the ChinaAngVirus disinformation campaign
was designed to "counter what it perceived as China's growing influence
in the Philippines" and was prompted by the "[fear] that China's COVID diplomacy and propaganda could draw other Southeast Asian countries, such as Cambodia and Malaysia, closer to Beijing". The campaign was also described as "payback for Beijing's efforts to blame Washington for the pandemic". The campaign primarily targeted people in the Philippines and used a social media hashtag for "China is the virus" in Tagalog. The campaign ran from 2020 to mid-2021. The primary contractor for the U.S. military on the project was General Dynamics IT, which received $493 million for its role.
Since 2023, Republican members of the US Congress have attacked researchers who study disinformation as being against freedom of speech and as a euphemism for government censorship. On April 18, 2025, citing an Executive Order signed by Trump, the US National Science Foundation released a statement cancelling funding for disinformation research, saying that it does not fit with the NSF priorities, "including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and misinformation/disinformation."
Disinformation in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum
The 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum saw figures from the Leave campaign spread disinformation on social media. Many of these arguments played on voters' emotions and attachments,
such as the claim that the £350 million that the UK sent to the EU each
week could be allocated to the NHS instead, which made them highly effective. Ofcom requires news broadcasters to remain neutral, yet this adherence to neutrality created false balance in the Brexit debate, causing broadcasters to inadvertedly promote disinformation.
Response
Responses from cultural leaders
Pope Francis condemned disinformation in a 2016 interview, after being made the subject of a fake news website during the 2016 U.S. election cycle which falsely claimed that he supported Donald Trump. He stated that the worst thing the news media could do was spread disinformation and said the act was a sin, comparing those who spread disinformation to individuals who engage in coprophilia.
Ethics in warfare
In a contribution to the 2014 book Military Ethics and Emerging Technologies, writers David Danks and Joseph H. Danks discuss the ethical implications in using disinformation as a tactic during information warfare. They note there has been a significant degree of philosophical debate over the issue as related to the ethics of war and use of the technique. The writers describe a position whereby the use of disinformation is occasionally allowed, but not in all situations. Typically the ethical test to consider is whether the disinformation was performed out of a motivation of good faith and acceptable according to the rules of war. By this test, the tactic during World War II of putting fake inflatable tanks in visible locations on the Pacific Islands
in order to falsely present the impression that there were larger
military forces present would be considered as ethically permissible. Conversely, disguising a munitions plant as a healthcare facility in
order to avoid attack would be outside the bounds of acceptable use of
disinformation during war.
Research related to disinformation studies is increasing as an applied area of inquiry. The call to formally classify disinformation as a cybersecurity threat is made by advocates due to its increase in social networking sites. Despite the proliferation of social media websites, Facebook and
Twitter showed the most activity in terms of active disinformation
campaigns. Techniques reported on included the use of bots to amplify
hate speech, the illegal harvesting of data, and paid trolls to harass
and threaten journalists.
Whereas disinformation research focuses primarily on how actors orchestrate deceptions on social media, primarily via fake news, new research investigates how people take what started as deceptions and circulate them as their personal views. As a result, research shows that disinformation can be conceptualized
as a program that encourages engagement in oppositional fantasies (i.e.,
culture wars), through which disinformation circulates as rhetorical ammunition for never-ending arguments. As disinformation entangles with culture wars, identity-driven controversies constitute a vehicle through which disinformation disseminates on social media.
This means that disinformation thrives, not despite raucous grudges but
because of them. The reason is that controversies provide fertile
ground for never-ending debates that solidify points of view.
Scholars have pointed out that disinformation is not only a
foreign threat as domestic purveyors of disinformation are also
leveraging traditional media outlets such as newspapers, radio stations,
and television news media to disseminate false information. Current research suggests right-wing online political activists in the United States may be more likely to use disinformation as a strategy and tactic. The 2016 European Union referendum in the UK also saw British politicians supporting the Leave campaign spread disinformation on Twitter. The Conservative Party was also accused of spreading disinformation about the Labour Party in the lead-up to the 2019 General Election. Governments have responded with a wide range of policies to address
concerns about the potential threats that disinformation poses to
democracy, however, there is little agreement in elite policy discourse
or academic literature as to what it means for disinformation to
threaten democracy, and how different policies might help to counter its
negative implications.
Consequences of exposure to disinformation online
There is a broad consensus amongst scholars that there is a
high degree of disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda online;
however, it is unclear to what extent such disinformation has on
political attitudes in the public and, therefore, political outcomes. This conventional wisdom
has come mostly from investigative journalists, with a particular rise
during the 2016 U.S. election: some of the earliest work came from Craig
Silverman at Buzzfeed News. Cass Sunstein supported this in #Republic, arguing that the internet would become rife with echo chambers and informational cascades of misinformation leading to a highly polarized and ill-informed society. Later studies have since proven the existence of echo chambers on social media.
Research after the 2016 US presidential election found:
(1) for 14% of Americans social media was their "most important" source
of election news; 2) known false news stories "favoring Trump were
shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring
Clinton were shared 8 million times"; 3) the average American adult saw
fake news stories, "with just over half of those who recalled seeing
them believing them"; and 4) people are more likely to "believe stories
that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have
ideologically segregated social media networks." Correspondingly, whilst there is wide agreement that the digital spread
and uptake of disinformation during the 2016 election was massive and
very likely facilitated by foreign agents, there is an ongoing debate on
whether all this had any actual effect on the election. For example, a
double blind randomized-control experiment by researchers from the
London School of Economics (LSE), found that exposure to online fake
news about either Trump or Clinton had no significant effect on
intentions to vote for those candidates. Researchers who examined the
influence of Russian disinformation on Twitter during the 2016 US
presidential campaign found that exposure to disinformation was (1)
concentrated among a tiny group of users, (2) primarily among
Republicans, and (3) eclipsed by exposure to legitimate political news
media and politicians. Finally, they find "no evidence of a meaningful
relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign
and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior." As such, despite its mass dissemination during the 2016 Presidential
Elections, online fake news or disinformation probably did not cost
Hillary Clinton the votes needed to secure the presidency.
Research on this topic remains inconclusive, for example,
misinformation appears not to significantly change political knowledge
of those exposed to it. There seems to be a higher level of diversity of news sources that
users are exposed to on Facebook and Twitter than conventional wisdom
would dictate, as well as a higher frequency of cross-spectrum
discussion. Other evidence has found that disinformation campaigns rarely succeed in altering the foreign policies of the targeted states.
Research is also challenging because disinformation is
meant to be difficult to detect and some social media companies have
discouraged outside research efforts. For example, researchers found disinformation made "existing detection
algorithms from traditional news media ineffective or not
applicable...[because disinformation] is intentionally written to
mislead readers...[and] users' social engagements with fake news produce
data that is big, incomplete, unstructured, and noisy." Facebook, the largest social media company, has been criticized by analytical journalists and scholars for preventing outside research of disinformation.
Alternative perspectives and critiques
Researchers have criticized the framing of disinformation
as being limited to technology platforms, removed from its wider
political context and inaccurately implying that the media landscape was
otherwise well-functioning. "The field possesses a simplistic understanding of the effects of media
technologies; overemphasizes platforms and underemphasizes politics;
focuses too much on the United States and Anglocentric analysis; has a
shallow understanding of political culture and culture in general; lacks
analysis of race, class, gender, and sexuality as well as status,
inequality, social structure, and power; has a thin understanding of
journalistic processes; and, has progressed more through the exigencies
of grant funding than the development of theory and empirical findings."
Alternative perspectives have been proposed:
Moving beyond fact-checking and media literacy to study a pervasive phenomenon as something that involves more than news consumption.
Moving beyond technical solutions including AI-enhanced fact checking to understand the systemic basis of disinformation.
Develop a theory that goes beyond Americentrism to develop a global perspective, understand cultural imperialism and Third World dependency on Western news, and understand disinformation in the Global South.
Develop market-oriented disinformation research that examines the financial incentives and business models that nudge content creators and digital platforms to circulate disinformation online.
Develop understandings of Gendered-based disinformation (GBD)
defined as "the dissemination of false or misleading information
attacking women (especially political leaders, journalists and public
figures), basing the attack on their identity as women."
The research literature on how disinformation spreads is growing. Studies show that disinformation spread in social media can be classified into two broad stages: seeding and echoing. "Seeding", when malicious actors strategically insert deceptions, like
fake news, into a social media ecosystem, and "echoing" is when the
audience disseminates disinformation argumentatively as their own
opinions often by incorporating disinformation into a confrontational
fantasy.
Internet manipulation
Internet manipulation is the use of online digital technologies, including algorithms, social bots, and automated scripts, for commercial, social, military, or political purposes. Internet and social media manipulation are the prime vehicles for spreading disinformation due to the importance of digital platforms for media consumption and everyday communication. When employed for political purposes, internet manipulation may be used to steer public opinion, polarise citizens, circulate conspiracy theories, and silence political dissidents. Internet manipulation can also be done for profit, for instance, to harm corporate or political adversaries and improve brand reputation. Internet manipulation is sometimes also used to describe the selective enforcement of Internet censorship or selective violations of net neutrality.
Internet manipulation for propaganda purposes with the help of data analysis and internet bots in social media is called computational propaganda.
Studies show four main methods of seeding disinformation online:
Selective censorship
Manipulation of search rankings
Hacking and releasing
Directly sharing disinformation
Recently, concerns have been expressed that AI technology
could enable groups of AI programs, known as 'AI swarms,' to
autonomously coordinate to manipulate democratic discourse, by
maintaining persistent fake identities and mimicking human social
dynamics over extended periods of time.
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation), when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, as it can often be based in prejudice, emotional conviction, insufficient evidence or paranoia. A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a
hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not
limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are
qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians. As such, conspiracy theories are identified as lay theories.
Conspiracy theories are usually resistant to falsification either by evidence against them or a lack of evidence for them. They are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and absence of evidence for it are misinterpreted as evidence of its truth.Psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky
observes "the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy, the more the
conspirators must want people to believe their version of events." As a consequence, the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven. Studies have linked belief in conspiracy theories to distrust of authority and political cynicism. Some researchers suggest that conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—may be psychologically harmful or pathological. Such belief is correlated with psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism.
Belief in a single conspiracy theory is often associated with belief in other conspiracy theories. Psychologists usually attribute belief in conspiracy theories to a number of psychopathological conditions such as paranoia, schizotypy, narcissism, and insecure attachment, or to a form of cognitive bias called "illusory pattern perception". It has also been linked with the so-called Dark triad personality types, whose common feature is lack of empathy. However, a 2020 review article found that most cognitive scientists
view conspiracy theorizing as typically nonpathological, given that
unfounded belief in conspiracy is common across both historical and
contemporary cultures, and may arise from innate human tendencies
towards gossip, group cohesion, and religion. One historical review of conspiracy theories concluded that "Evidence
suggests that the aversive feelings that people experience when in
crisis—fear, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of
control—stimulate a motivation to make sense of the situation,
increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies in social
situations."
Conspiracy theories that were once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace on the Internet and social media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They are widespread around the world and are often widely believed, sometimes even by the majority of the population. Interventions to reduce the occurrence of conspiracy beliefs include maintaining an open society, encouraging people to use analytical thinking, and reducing feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, or powerlessness.
Origin and usage
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec.
a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political
in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an
unexplained event". The earliest usage example it cites is a 1909
article in The American Historical Review, although the phrase appeared in print several decades before.
England
has had quite enough to do in Europe and Asia, without going out of her
way to meddle with America. It was a physical and moral impossibility
that she could be carrying on a gigantic conspiracy against us. But our
masses, having only a rough general knowledge of foreign affairs, and
not unnaturally somewhat exaggerating the space which we occupy in the
world's eye, do not appreciate the complications which rendered such a
conspiracy impossible. They only look at the sudden right-about-face
movement of the English Press and public, which is most readily
accounted for on the conspiracy theory.
The term is also used as a way to discredit dissenting analyses. Robert Blaskiewicz comments that examples of the term were used as
early as the nineteenth century and states that its usage has always
been derogatory. According to a study by Andrew McKenzie-McHarg, in contrast, in the nineteenth century the term conspiracy theory
simply "suggests a plausible postulate of a conspiracy" and "did not,
at this stage, carry any connotations, either negative or positive",
though sometimes a postulate so-labeled was criticized. The author and activist George Monbiot argued that the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are misleading, as conspiracies truly exist and theories
are "rational explanations subject to disproof". Instead, he proposed
the terms "conspiracy fiction" and "conspiracy fantasist".
Theories involving multiple conspirators that are proven to be correct such as the Watergate scandal are usually referred to as investigative journalism or historical analysis rather than conspiracy theory. Bjerg (2016) writes: "the way we normally use the term conspiracy
theory excludes instances where the theory has been generally accepted
as true. The Watergate scandal serves as the standard reference." By contrast, the term "Watergate conspiracy theory" is used to refer to
a variety of hypotheses in which those convicted in the conspiracy were
in fact the victims of a deeper conspiracy. There are also attempts to analyze the theory of conspiracy theories
(conspiracy theory theory) to ensure that the term "conspiracy theory"
is used to refer to narratives that have been debunked by experts,
rather than as a generalized dismissal.
Conspiracy theorists are different than investigative
journalists in that journalists rely on evidence from vetted sources and
approach investigations free of bias, rather than believing the theory
is a matter of fact.
The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the subject of a conspiracy theory, which posits that the term was popularized by the CIA in order to discredit conspiratorial believers, particularly critics of the Warren Commission, by making them a target of ridicule. In his 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America,
the political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith wrote that the term entered
everyday language in the United States after 1964, the year in which
the Warren Commission published its findings on the assassination of John F. Kennedy, with The New York Times running five stories that year using the term.
Michael Butter, a Professor of American Literary and Cultural History at the University of Tübingen wrote in 2020 that the CIA document Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report,
which proponents of the theory use as evidence of CIA motive and
intention, does not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the
singular, and only uses the term "conspiracy theories" once, in the
sentence: "Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our
organisation, for example, by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us."
Recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back
to at least 1863, and it was notably invoked in reports following the
1881 shooting of then-President James A. Garfield, more than 60 years
before the CIA was established. An academic review of the digital
library JSTOR found the term "conspiracy theorist" had been published at
least in the year before Kennedy’s death.
Difference from conspiracy
A conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy, which refers to any covert plan involving two or more people. In contrast, the term "conspiracy theory" refers to hypothesized
conspiracies that have specific characteristics. For example,
conspiracist beliefs invariably oppose the mainstream consensus among
those people who are qualified to evaluate their accuracy, such as scientists or historians. Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to
socially persecuted knowledge or a stigmatized mode of thought that
separates them from the masses who believe the official account. Michael Barkun describes a conspiracy theory as a "template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events".
Real conspiracies, even very simple ones, are difficult to conceal and routinely experience unexpected problems. In contrast, conspiracy theories suggest that conspiracies are
unrealistically successful and that groups of conspirators, such as bureaucracies,
can act with near-perfect competence and secrecy. The causes of events
or situations are simplified to exclude complex or interacting factors,
as well as the role of chance and unintended consequences. Nearly all
observations are explained as having been deliberately planned by the
alleged conspirators.
In conspiracy theories, the conspirators are usually claimed to be acting with extreme malice. As described by Robert Brotherton:
The
malevolent intent assumed by most conspiracy theories goes far beyond
everyday plots borne out of self-interest, corruption, cruelty, and
criminality. The postulated conspirators are not merely people with
selfish agendas or differing values. Rather, conspiracy theories
postulate a black-and-white world in which good is struggling against
evil. The general public is cast as the victim of organised persecution,
and the motives of the alleged conspirators often verge on pure
maniacal evil. At the very least, the conspirators are said to have an
almost inhuman disregard for the basic liberty and well-being of the
general population. More grandiose conspiracy theories portray the
conspirators as being Evil Incarnate: of having caused all the ills from
which we suffer, committing abominable acts of unthinkable cruelty on a
routine basis, and striving ultimately to subvert or destroy everything
we hold dear.
A conspiracy theory may take any matter as its subject,
but certain subjects attract greater interest than others. Favored
subjects include famous deaths and assassinations, morally dubious
government activities, suppressed technologies, and "false flag" terrorism. Among the best-known conspiracy theories relate to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 1969 Apollo Moon landings, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as well as numerous theories pertaining to alleged plots for world domination by various groups, both real and imaginary.
Popularity
Conspiratorial beliefs are widespread around the world. Although scholarly research has focused on conspiracy theories in
Western societies, conspiracies have been observed in numerous
countries, including in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Middle
East. In rural Namibia and Tanzania, common targets of conspiracy
theorizing include societal elites, enemy tribes, and the Western world,
with conspirators often alleged to enact their plans via sorcery or
witchcraft; one belief identifies modern technology as itself being a
form of sorcery, created with the goal of harming or controlling the
people. In China, one widely published conspiracy theory claims that a number of events including the rise of Hitler, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and climate change were planned by the Rothschild family, which may have led to effects on discussions about China's currency policy.
Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, contributing to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The general predisposition to believe conspiracy theories cuts across
partisan and ideological lines. Conspiratorial thinking is correlated
with antigovernmental orientations and a low sense of political
efficacy, with conspiracy believers perceiving a governmental threat to
individual rights and displaying a deep skepticism that who one votes
for really matters.
Conspiracy theories are often commonly believed, some even being held by the majority of the population.A broad cross-section of Americans today gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories. For instance, a study conducted in 2016 found that 10% of Americans think the chemtrail conspiracy theory is "completely true" and 20–30% think it is "somewhat true". This puts "the equivalent of 120 million Americans in the 'chemtrails are real' camp". Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.
Conspiracy theories are widely present on the Web in the form of blogs and YouTube videos, as well as on social media. Whether the Web has increased the prevalence of conspiracy theories or not is an open research question. The presence and representation of conspiracy theories in search engine
results has been monitored and studied, showing significant variation
across different topics, and a general absence of reputable,
high-quality links in the results.
One conspiracy theory that propagated through former U.S. President Barack Obama's time in office claimed that he was born in Kenya, instead of Hawaii where he was actually born. Former governor of Arkansas and political opponent of Obama Mike Huckabee made headlines in 2011 when he, among other members of Republican leadership, continued to question Obama's citizenship status.
Another conspiracy theory posits that members of the
George W. Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 11 September 2001
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Belief in conspiracy theories in the United States, December 2020 – NPR/Ipsos poll, ±3.3%
Conspiracy theory
Believe
Not sure
"A group of Satan-worshipping elites who run a child sex ring are trying to control our politics and media" (QAnon)
17%
37%
"Several mass shootings in recent years were staged hoaxes" (crisis actor theory)
A conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused
on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries,
regions and periods of history. According to Russell Muirhead and Nancy Rosenblum,
historically, traditional conspiracism has entailed a "theory", but
over time, "conspiracy" and "theory" have become decoupled, as modern
conspiracism is often without any kind of theory behind it.
Walker's five kinds
Jesse Walker (2013) has identified five kinds of conspiracy theories:
The "Enemy Outside" refers to theories based on figures alleged to be scheming against a community from without.
The "Enemy Within" finds the conspirators lurking inside the nation, indistinguishable from ordinary citizens.
The "Enemy Above" involves powerful people manipulating events for their own gain.
The "Enemy Below" features the lower classes working to overturn the social order.
The "Benevolent Conspiracies" are angelic forces that work behind the scenes to improve the world and help people.
Barkun's three types
Michael Barkun has identified three classifications of conspiracy theory:
Event conspiracy theories. This refers to limited and well-defined events. Examples may include such conspiracy theories as those concerning the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, and the spread of AIDS.
Systemic conspiracy theories. The
conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as
securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The
goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally
simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and
subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy
theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church.
Superconspiracy theories. For Barkun,
such theories link multiple alleged conspiracies together
hierarchically. At the summit is a distant but all-powerful evil force.
His cited examples are the ideas of David Icke and Milton William Cooper.
Rothbard: shallow vis-à-vis deep
Murray Rothbard
argues in favor of a model that contrasts "deep" conspiracy theories to
"shallow" ones. According to Rothbard, a "shallow" theorist observes an
event and asks Cui bono?
("Who benefits?"), jumping to the conclusion that a posited beneficiary
is responsible for covertly influencing events. On the other hand, the
"deep" conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out
evidence. Rothbard describes this latter activity as a matter of
confirming with certain facts one's initial paranoia.
Lack of evidence
Belief in conspiracy theories is generally based not on evidence but on the faith of the believer. As such conspiracy theories are identified as lay theories. Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory to institutional analysis,
which focuses mainly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly
known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or mainstream media reports. Conspiracy theory conversely posits the existence of secretive
coalitions of individuals and speculates on their alleged activities. Belief in conspiracy theories is associated with biases in reasoning, such as the conjunction fallacy.
Clare Birchall at King's College London describes conspiracy theory as a "form of popular knowledge or interpretation". The use of the word 'knowledge' here suggests ways in which conspiracy
theory may be considered in relation to legitimate modes of knowing. The relationship between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge,
Birchall claims, is closer than common dismissals of conspiracy theory
contend.
Rhetoric
Conspiracy theory rhetoric exploits several important cognitive biases, including proportionality bias, attribution bias, and confirmation bias. Their arguments often take the form of asking reasonable questions, but without providing an answer based on strong evidence. Conspiracy theories are most successful when proponents can gather
followers from the general public, such as in politics, religion and
journalism. These proponents may not necessarily believe the conspiracy
theory; instead, they may just use it in an attempt to gain public
approval. Conspiratorial claims can act as a successful rhetorical
strategy to convince a portion of the public via appeal to emotion.
Conspiracy theories typically justify themselves by
focusing on gaps or ambiguities in knowledge, and then arguing that the
true explanation for this must be a conspiracy. In contrast, any evidence that directly supports their claims is
generally of low quality. For example, conspiracy theories are often
dependent on eyewitness testimony, despite its unreliability, while disregarding objective analyses of the evidence.
Conspiracy theories are not able to be falsified and are reinforced by fallacious arguments. In particular, the logical fallacy circular reasoning
is used by conspiracy theorists: both evidence against the conspiracy
and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its
truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved. The epistemic strategy of conspiracy theories has been called "cascade
logic": each time new evidence becomes available, a conspiracy theory is
able to dismiss it by claiming that even more people must be part of
the cover-up.Any information that contradicts the conspiracy theory is suggested to be disinformation by the alleged conspiracy. Similarly, the continued lack of evidence directly supporting
conspiracist claims is portrayed as confirming the existence of a
conspiracy of silence; the fact that other people have not found or
exposed any conspiracy is taken as evidence that those people are part
of the plot, rather than considering that it may be because no
conspiracy exists. This strategy lets conspiracy theories insulate themselves from neutral
analyses of the evidence, and makes them resistant to questioning or
correction, which is called "epistemic self-insulation".
In
2013, 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers that took a position
on the cause of global warming said that humans are responsible, 3% said
they were not. Among Fox News
guests the same year, this was presented as a false balance between the
two viewpoints, with 31% of invited guests believing it was happening
and 69% not.
Conspiracy theorists often take advantage of false balance
in the media. They may claim to be presenting a legitimate alternative
viewpoint that deserves equal time to argue its case; for example, this
strategy has been used by the Teach the Controversy campaign to promote intelligent design,
which often claims that there is a conspiracy of scientists suppressing
their views. If they successfully find a platform to present their
views in a debate format, they focus on using rhetorical ad hominems
and attacking perceived flaws in the mainstream account, while avoiding
any discussion of the shortcomings in their own position.
The typical approach of conspiracy theories is to
challenge any action or statement from authorities, using even the most
tenuous justifications. Responses are then assessed using a double
standard, where failing to provide an immediate response to the
satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist will be claimed to prove a
conspiracy. Any minor errors in the response are heavily emphasized,
while deficiencies in the arguments of other proponents are generally
excused.
In science, conspiracists may suggest that a scientific theory
can be disproven by a single perceived deficiency, even though such
events are extremely rare. In addition, both disregarding the claims and
attempting to address them will be interpreted as proof of a
conspiracy. Other conspiracist arguments may not be scientific; for example, in response to the IPCC Second Assessment Report
in 1996, much of the opposition centered on promoting a procedural
objection to the report's creation. Specifically, it was claimed that
part of the procedure reflected a conspiracy to silence dissenters,
which served as motivation for opponents of the report and successfully
redirected a significant amount of the public discussion away from the
science.
Consequences
Third Reich Nazi antisemitic propaganda poster entitled Das jüdische Komplott ("The Jewish Conspiracy")
Conspiracy theories are a fundamental component of a wide
range of radicalized and extremist groups, where they may play an
important role in reinforcing the ideology and psychology of their
members as well as further radicalizing their beliefs. These conspiracy theories often share common themes, even among groups
that would otherwise be fundamentally opposed, such as the antisemitic conspiracy theories found among political extremists on both the far right and far left. More generally, belief in conspiracy theories is associated with
holding extreme and uncompromising viewpoints, and may help people in
maintaining those viewpoints.[43]
While conspiracy theories are not always present in extremist groups,
and do not always lead to violence when they are, they can make the
group more extreme, provide an enemy to direct hatred towards, and
isolate members from the rest of society. Conspiracy theories are most
likely to inspire violence when they call for urgent action, appeal to
prejudices, or demonize and scapegoat enemies.
Conspiracy theorizing in the workplace can also have
economic consequences. For example, it leads to lower job satisfaction
and lower commitment, resulting in workers being more likely to leave
their jobs. Comparisons have also been made with the effects of workplace rumors,
which share some characteristics with conspiracy theories and result in
both decreased productivity and increased stress. Subsequent effects on
managers include reduced profits, reduced trust from employees, and
damage to the company's image.
Conspiracy theories can divert attention from important social, political, and scientific issues. In addition, they have been used to discredit scientific evidence to
the general public or in a legal context. Conspiratorial strategies also
share characteristics with those used by lawyers who are attempting to
discredit expert testimony, such as claiming that the experts have
ulterior motives in testifying, or attempting to find someone who will
provide statements to imply that expert opinion is more divided than it
actually is.
It is possible that conspiracy theories may also produce
some compensatory benefits to society in certain situations. For
example, they may help people identify governmental deceptions,
particularly in repressive societies, and encourage government transparency. However, real conspiracies are normally revealed by people working within the system, such as whistleblowers and journalists, and most of the effort spent by conspiracy theorists is inherently misdirected. The most dangerous conspiracy theories are likely to be those that incite violence, scapegoat disadvantaged groups, or spread misinformation about important societal issues.
Strategies to address conspiracy theories have been
divided into two categories based on whether the target audience is the
conspiracy theorists or the general public. These strategies have been described as reducing either the supply or the demand for conspiracy theories. Both approaches can be used at the same time, although there may be
issues of limited resources, or if arguments are used which may appeal
to one audience at the expense of the other.
Brief scientific literacy interventions, particularly
those focusing on critical thinking skills, can effectively undermine
conspiracy beliefs and related behaviors. Research led by Penn State
scholars, published in the Journal of Consumer Research,
found that enhancing scientific knowledge and reasoning through short
interventions, such as videos explaining concepts like correlation and
causation, reduces the endorsement of conspiracy theories. These
interventions were most effective against conspiracy theories based on
faulty reasoning and were successful even among groups prone to
conspiracy beliefs. The studies, involving over 2,700 participants,
highlight the importance of educational interventions in mitigating
conspiracy beliefs, especially when timed to influence critical
decision-making.
General public
People who feel empowered are more resistant to conspiracy theories. Methods to promote empowerment include encouraging people to use analytical thinking, priming
people to think of situations where they are in control, and ensuring
that decisions by society and government are seen to follow procedural
fairness (the use of fair decision-making procedures).
Methods of refutation which have shown effectiveness in
various circumstances include: providing facts that demonstrate the
conspiracy theory is false, attempting to discredit the source,
explaining how the logic is invalid or misleading, and providing links
to fact-checking websites. It can also be effective to use these strategies in advance, informing
people that they could encounter misleading information in the future,
and why the information should be rejected (also called inoculation or
prebunking). While it has been suggested that discussing conspiracy theories can
raise their profile and make them seem more legitimate to the public,
the discussion can put people on guard instead as long as it is
sufficiently persuasive.
Other approaches to reduce the appeal of conspiracy
theories in general among the public may be based in the emotional and
social nature of conspiratorial beliefs. For example, interventions that
promote analytical thinking in the general public are likely to be
effective. Another approach is to intervene in ways that decrease negative emotions, and specifically to improve feelings of personal hope and empowerment.
Conspiracy theorists
It is much more difficult to convince people who already believe in conspiracy theories.Conspiracist belief systems are not based on external evidence, but instead use circular logic where every belief is supported by other conspiracist beliefs. In addition, conspiracy theories have a "self-sealing" nature, in which
the types of arguments used to support them make them resistant to
questioning from others.
Characteristics of successful strategies for reaching
conspiracy theorists have been divided into several broad categories: 1)
Arguments can be presented by "trusted messengers", such as people who
were formerly members of an extremist group. 2) Since conspiracy
theorists think of themselves as people who value critical thinking,
this can be affirmed and then redirected to encourage being more
critical when analyzing the conspiracy theory. 3) Approaches demonstrate
empathy, and are based on building understanding together, which is
supported by modeling open-mindedness in order to encourage the
conspiracy theorists to do likewise. 4) The conspiracy theories are not
attacked with ridicule or aggressive deconstruction, and interactions
are not treated like an argument to be won; this approach can work with
the general public, but among conspiracy theorists it may simply be
rejected.
Interventions that reduce feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, or powerlessness result in a reduction in conspiracy beliefs. Other possible strategies to mitigate the effect of conspiracy theories
include education, media literacy, and increasing governmental openness
and transparency. Due to the relationship between conspiracy theories and political extremism, the academic literature on deradicalization is also important.
One approach describes conspiracy theories as resulting
from a "crippled epistemology", in which a person encounters or accepts
very few relevant sources of information. A conspiracy theory is more likely to appear justified to people with a
limited "informational environment" who only encounter misleading
information. These people may be "epistemologically isolated" in self-enclosed networks.
From the perspective of people within these networks, disconnected from
the information available to the rest of society, believing in
conspiracy theories may appear to be justified. In these cases, the solution would be to break the group's informational isolation.
Reducing transmission
Public exposure to conspiracy theories can be reduced by
interventions that reduce their ability to spread, such as by
encouraging people to reflect before sharing a news story. Researchers Carlos Diaz Ruiz and Tomas Nilsson have proposed technical
and rhetorical interventions to counter the spread of conspiracy
theories on social media.
Interventions to counter the spread of conspiracy theories on social media
Type of intervention
Intervention
Technical
Expose sources that insert and circulate conspiracy theories on social media (flagging).
Diminish the source's capacity to monetize conspiracies (demonetization).
Slow down the circulation of conspiracy theories (algorithm)
Rhetorical
Issue authoritative corrections (fact-checking).
Authority-based corrections and fact-checking may backfire because personal worldviews cannot be proved wrong.
Enlist spokespeople that can be perceived as allies and insiders.
Rebuttals must spring from an epistemology that participants are already familiar with.
Give believers of conspiracies an "exit ramp" to dis-invest themselves without facing ridicule.
Government policies
The primary defense against conspiracy theories is to maintain an open society,
in which many sources of reliable information are available, and
government sources are known to be credible rather than propaganda.
Additionally, independent nongovernmental organizations are able to
correct misinformation without requiring people to trust the government. The absence of civil rights and civil liberties reduces the number of information sources available to the population, which may lead people to support conspiracy theories. Since the credibility of conspiracy theories can be increased if
governments act dishonestly or otherwise engage in objectionable
actions, avoiding such actions is also a relevant strategy.
Joseph Pierre has said that mistrust in authoritative
institutions is the core component underlying many conspiracy theories
and that this mistrust creates an epistemic vacuum and makes individuals
searching for answers vulnerable to misinformation. Therefore, one
possible solution is offering consumers a seat at the table to mend
their mistrust in institutions. Regarding the challenges of this approach, Pierre has said, "The
challenge with acknowledging areas of uncertainty within a public sphere
is that doing so can be weaponized to reinforce a post-truth view of
the world in which everything is debatable, and any counter-position is
just as valid. Although I like to think of myself as a middle of the
road kind of individual, it is important to keep in mind that the truth
does not always lie in the middle of a debate, whether we are talking
about climate change, vaccines, or antipsychotic medications."
Researchers have recommended that public policies should
take into account the possibility of conspiracy theories relating to any
policy or policy area, and prepare to combat them in advance. Conspiracy theories have suddenly arisen in the context of policy
issues as disparate as land-use laws and bicycle-sharing programs. In the case of public communications by government officials, factors
that improve the effectiveness of communication include using clear and
simple messages, and using messengers which are trusted by the target
population. Government information about conspiracy theories is more
likely to be believed if the messenger is perceived as being part of
someone's in-group. Official representatives may be more effective if they share characteristics with the target groups, such as ethnicity.
In addition, when the government communicates with
citizens to combat conspiracy theories, online methods are more
efficient compared to other methods such as print publications. This
also promotes transparency, can improve a message's perceived
trustworthiness, and is more effective at reaching underrepresented
demographics. However, as of 2019,
many governmental websites do not take full advantage of the available
information-sharing opportunities. Similarly, social media accounts need
to be used effectively in order to achieve meaningful communication
with the public, such as by responding to requests that citizens send to
those accounts. Other steps include adapting messages to the
communication styles used on the social media platform in question, and
promoting a culture of openness. Since mixed messaging can support
conspiracy theories, it is also important to avoid conflicting accounts,
such as by ensuring the accuracy of messages on the social media
accounts of individual members of the organization.
Public health campaigns
Successful methods for dispelling conspiracy theories have been studied in the context of public health
campaigns. A key characteristic of communication strategies to address
medical conspiracy theories is the use of techniques that rely less on
emotional appeals. It is more effective to use methods that encourage
people to process information rationally. The use of visual aids is also
an essential part of these strategies. Since conspiracy theories are
based on intuitive thinking, and visual information processing relies on
intuition, visual aids are able to compete directly for the public's
attention.
In public health campaigns, information retention by the
public is highest for loss-framed messages that include more extreme
outcomes. However, excessively appealing to catastrophic scenarios (e.g.
low vaccination rates causing an epidemic) may provoke anxiety, which
is associated with conspiracism and could increase belief in conspiracy
theories instead. Scare tactics
have sometimes had mixed results, but are generally considered
ineffective. An example of this is the use of images that showcase
disturbing health outcomes, such as the impact of smoking on dental
health. One possible explanation is that information processed via the
fear response is typically not evaluated rationally, which may prevent
the message from being linked to the desired behaviors.
A particularly important technique is the use of focus groups
to understand exactly what people believe, and the reasons they give
for those beliefs. This allows messaging to focus on the specific
concerns that people identify, and on topics that are easily
misinterpreted by the public, since these are factors which conspiracy
theories can take advantage of. In addition, discussions with focus
groups and observations of the group dynamics can indicate which
anti-conspiracist ideas are most likely to spread.
Interventions that address medical conspiracy theories by reducing powerlessness include emphasizing the principle of informed consent,
giving patients all the relevant information without imposing decisions
on them, to ensure that they have a sense of control. Improving access
to healthcare also reduces medical conspiracism. However, doing so by
political efforts can also fuel additional conspiracy theories, which
occurred with the Affordable Care Act
(Obamacare) in the United States. Another successful strategy is to
require people to watch a short video when they fulfil requirements such
as registration for school or a drivers' license, which has been
demonstrated to improve vaccination rates and signups for organ
donation.
Another approach is based on viewing conspiracy theories
as narratives which express personal and cultural values, making them
less susceptible to straightforward factual corrections, and more
effectively addressed by counter-narratives.Counter-narratives can be more engaging and memorable than simple
corrections, and can be adapted to the specific values held by
individuals and cultures. These narratives may depict personal
experiences, or alternatively they can be cultural narratives. In the
context of vaccination, examples of cultural narratives include stories
about scientific breakthroughs, about the world before vaccinations, or
about heroic and altruistic researchers. The themes to be addressed
would be those that could be exploited by conspiracy theories to
increase vaccine hesitancy, such as perceptions of vaccine risk, lack of patient empowerment, and lack of trust in medical authorities.
Backfire effects
It has been suggested that directly countering misinformation
can be counterproductive. For example, since conspiracy theories can
reinterpret disconfirming information as part of their narrative,
refuting a claim can result in accidentally reinforcing it, which is referred to as a "backfire effect". In addition, publishing criticism of conspiracy theories can result in legitimizing them. In this context, possible interventions include carefully selecting
which conspiracy theories to refute, requesting additional analyses from
independent observers, and introducing cognitive diversity into
conspiratorial communities by undermining their poor epistemology. Any legitimization effect might also be reduced by responding to more conspiracy theories rather than fewer.
There are psychological mechanisms by which backfire
effects could potentially occur, but the evidence on this topic is
mixed, and backfire effects are very rare in practice.A 2020 review of the scientific literature on backfire effects found that there have been widespread failures to replicate their existence, even under conditions that would be theoretically favorable to observing them. Due to the lack of reproducibility, as of 2020
most researchers believe that backfire effects are either unlikely to
occur on the broader population level, or they only occur in very
specific circumstances, or they do not exist. Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers who initially proposed the
occurrence of backfire effects, wrote in 2021 that the persistence of
misinformation is most likely due to other factors.
In general, people do reject conspiracy theories when they learn about their contradictions and lack of evidence. For most people, corrections and fact-checking are very unlikely to
have a negative impact, and there is no specific group of people in
which backfire effects have been consistently observed. Presenting people with factual corrections, or highlighting the logical
contradictions in conspiracy theories, has been demonstrated to have a
positive effect in many circumstances. For example, this has been studied in the case of informing believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories about statements by actual experts and witnesses. One possibility is that criticism is most likely to backfire if it
challenges someone's worldview or identity. This suggests that an
effective approach may be to provide criticism while avoiding such
challenges.
Psychology
The widespread belief in conspiracy theories has become a
topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists, and experts in
folklore since at least the 1960s, when a number of conspiracy theories arose regarding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Sociologist
Türkay Salim Nefes underlines the political nature of conspiracy
theories. He suggests that one of the most important characteristics of
these accounts is their attempt to unveil the "real but hidden" power
relations in social groups. The term "conspiracism" was popularized by academic Frank P. Mintz in
the 1980s. According to Mintz, conspiracism denotes "belief in the
primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history":
Conspiracism
serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and
elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social
catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action
can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories
do not typify a particular epoch or ideology.
Research suggests, on a psychological level, conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—can be harmful or pathological, and is highly correlated with psychological projection, as well as with paranoia, which is predicted by the degree of a person's Machiavellianism. The propensity to believe in conspiracy theories is strongly associated with the mental health disorder of schizotypy. Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Exposure to conspiracy theories in news media and popular entertainment
increases receptiveness to conspiratorial ideas, and has also increased
the social acceptability of fringe beliefs.
Conspiracy theories often use complicated and detailed
arguments, including ones that appear analytical or scientific. However,
belief in conspiracy theories is primarily driven by emotion. One of the most widely confirmed facts about conspiracy theories is
that belief in a single conspiracy theory is often associated with
belief in other conspiracy theories. This even applies when the conspiracy theories directly contradict each other—e.g., believing that Osama bin Laden
was already dead before his compound in Pakistan was attacked makes the
same person more likely to believe that he is still alive. One
conclusion from this finding is that the content of a conspiracist
belief is less important than the idea of a coverup by the authorities. Analytical thinking helps reduce believing in conspiracy theories, in part because it emphasizes rational and critical cognition.
Some psychologists assert that explanations related to
conspiracy theories can be, and often are, "internally consistent" with
strong beliefs previously held prior to the event that sparked the
belief in a conspiracy. People who believe in conspiracy theories tend to believe in other unsubstantiated claims, including pseudoscience and paranormal phenomena.
Attractions
Psychological motives for believing in conspiracy theories
can be categorized as epistemic, existential, or social. These motives
are particularly acute in vulnerable and disadvantaged populations.
However, it does not appear that the beliefs help to address these
motives; in fact, they may be self-defeating, acting to make the
situation worse instead. For example, while conspiratorial beliefs can result from a perceived sense of powerlessness,
exposure to conspiracy theories immediately suppresses personal
feelings of autonomy and control. Furthermore, they also make people
less likely to take actions that could improve their circumstances.
This is additionally supported by the fact that conspiracy theories have a number of disadvantageous attributes. For example, they promote a hostile and distrustful view of other
people and groups allegedly acting based on antisocial and cynical
motivations. This is expected to lead to increased social alienation and anomie and reduced social capital.
Similarly, they depict the public as ignorant and powerless against the
alleged conspirators, with important aspects of society determined by
malevolent forces, a viewpoint that is likely to be disempowering.
Each person may endorse conspiracy theories for one of many different reasons. The most consistently demonstrated characteristics of people who find conspiracy theories appealing are a feeling of alienation, unhappiness or dissatisfaction with their situation, an unconventional worldview, and a sense of disempowerment. While various aspects of personality affect susceptibility to conspiracy theories, none of the Big Five personality traits are associated with conspiracy beliefs.
The political scientist Michael Barkun,
discussing the usage of "conspiracy theory" in contemporary American
culture, holds that this term is used for a belief that explains an
event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and
cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end. According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold:
First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.
Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents.
Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.
This third point is supported by the research of Roland Imhoff, professor of social psychology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.
His research suggests that the smaller the minority believing in a
specific theory, the more attractive it is to conspiracy theorists. Humanistic psychologists
argue that even if a posited cabal behind an alleged conspiracy is
almost always perceived as hostile, there often remains an element of
reassurance for theorists. This is because it is a consolation to
imagine that humans create difficulties in human affairs and remain
within human control. If a cabal can be implicated, there may be a hope
of breaking its power or of joining it. Belief in the power of a cabal
is an implicit assertion of human dignity—an unconscious affirmation
that man is responsible for his own destiny.
People formulate conspiracy theories to explain, for
example, power relations in social groups and the perceived existence of
evil forces. Proposed psychological origins of conspiracy theorizing include
projection; the personal need to explain "a significant event [with] a
significant cause;" and the product of various kinds and stages of
thought disorder, such as paranoid disposition, ranging in severity to
diagnosable mental illnesses. Some people prefer socio-political
explanations over the insecurity of encountering random, unpredictable, or otherwise inexplicable events.According to Berlet and Lyons, "Conspiracism is a particular narrative
form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast
insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the
scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm".
Causes
Some psychologists believe that a search for meaning is common in conspiracism. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. When a conspiracy theory has become embedded within a social group, communal reinforcement may also play a part.
Inquiry into possible motives behind the accepting of irrational conspiracy theories has linked these beliefs to distress resulting from an event that occurred, such as the events of 9/11.
Additional research suggests that "delusional ideation" is the trait
most likely to indicate a stronger belief in conspiracy theories. Research also shows an increased attachment to these irrational beliefs leads to a decreased desire for civic engagement. Belief in conspiracy theories is correlated with low intelligence, lower analytical thinking, anxiety disorders, paranoia, and authoritarian beliefs.
Professor Quassim Cassam
argues that conspiracy theorists hold their beliefs due to flaws in
their thinking and, more precisely, their intellectual character. He
cites philosopher Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski and her book Virtues of the Mind
in outlining intellectual virtues (such as humility, caution, and
carefulness) and intellectual vices (such as gullibility, carelessness,
and closed-mindedness). Whereas intellectual virtues help reach sound
examination, intellectual vices "impede effective and responsible
inquiry", meaning that those prone to believing in conspiracy theories
possess certain vices while lacking necessary virtues.
Some researchers have suggested that conspiracy theories
could be partially caused by the human brain's mechanisms for detecting
dangerous coalitions. Such a mechanism could have been helpful in the
small-scale environment humanity evolved in but is mismatched in a
modern, complex society and thus "misfire", perceiving conspiracies
where none exist.
Projection
Some historians have argued that psychological projection
is prevalent amongst conspiracy theorists. According to the argument,
this projection is manifested in the form of attributing undesirable
characteristics of the self to the conspirators. Historian Richard
Hofstadter stated that:
This
enemy seems on many counts a projection of the self; both the ideal and
the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. A
fundamental paradox of the paranoid style is the imitation of the enemy.
The enemy, for example, may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the
paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of
pedantry....The
Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly
vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate
hierarchy. The John Birch Society
emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through "front"
groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along
lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen
of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist "crusades" openly express
their admiration for the dedication, discipline, and strategic ingenuity
the Communist cause calls forth.
Hofstadter also noted that "sexual freedom" is a vice
frequently attributed to the conspiracist's target group, noting that
"very often the fantasies of true believers reveal strong
sadomasochistic outlets, vividly expressed, for example, in the delight
of anti-Masons with the cruelty of Masonic punishments".
Physiology
Marcel Danesi
suggests that people who believe conspiracy theories have difficulty
rethinking situations. Exposure to those theories has caused neural
pathways to be more rigid and less subject to change. Initial
susceptibility to believing these theories' lies, dehumanizing language,
and metaphors leads to the acceptance of larger and more extensive
theories because the hardened neural pathways are already present.
Repetition of the "facts" of conspiracy theories and their connected
lies simply reinforces the rigidity of those pathways. Thus, conspiracy
theories and dehumanizing lies are not mere hyperbole; they can actually
change the way people think:
Unfortunately,
research into this brain wiring also shows that once people begin to
believe lies, they are unlikely to change their minds even when
confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It is a form of
brainwashing. Once the brain has carved out a well-worn path of
believing deceit, it is even harder to step out of that path – which is
how fanatics are born. Instead, these people will seek out information
that confirms their beliefs, avoid anything that is in conflict with
them, or even turn the contrasting information on its head, so as to
make it fit their beliefs.
People
with strong convictions will have a hard time changing their minds,
given how embedded a lie becomes in the mind. In fact, there are
scientists and scholars still studying the best tools and tricks to
combat lies with some combination of brain training and linguistic
awareness.
Sociology
In addition to psychological factors such as conspiracist
ideation, sociological factors also help account for who believes in
which conspiracy theories. Such theories tend to get more traction among
election losers in society, for example, and the emphasis on conspiracy
theories by elites and leaders tends to increase belief among followers
with higher levels of conspiracy thinking. Christopher Hitchens described conspiracy theories as the "exhaust fumes of democracy": the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.
Conspiracy theories may be emotionally satisfying, as they
assign blame to a group to which the theorist does not belong and,
thus, absolve the theorist of moral or political responsibility in
society. Likewise, Roger Cohen writing for The New York Times
has said that, "captive minds; ... resort to conspiracy theory because
it is the ultimate refuge of the powerless. If you cannot change your
own life, it must be that some greater force controls the world."
Sociological historian Holger Herwig found in studying German explanations for the origins of World War I,
"Those events that are most important are hardest to understand because
they attract the greatest attention from myth makers and charlatans." Justin Fox of Time
magazine argues that Wall Street traders are among the most
conspiracy-minded group of people, and ascribes this to the reality of
some financial market conspiracies, and to the ability of conspiracy
theories to provide necessary orientation in the market's day-to-day
movements.
Influence of critical theory
Bruno Latour notes that the language and intellectual tactics of critical theory have been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including climate-change denialists and the 9/11 truth movement:
"Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but I am worried
to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee-jerk disbelief, punctilious
demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social
neverland, many of the weapons of social critique."
Fusion paranoia
Michael Kelly, a Washington Post journalist and critic of anti-war
movements on both the left and right, coined the term "fusion paranoia"
to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing
activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he said were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or shared anti-government views.
Barkun has adopted this term to refer to how the synthesis
of paranoid conspiracy theories, which were once limited to American
fringe audiences, has given them mass appeal and enabled them to become
commonplace in mass media, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic or millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Barkun notes the occurrence of lone-wolf conflicts with law enforcement
acting as a proxy for threatening the established political powers.
Viability
As evidence that undermines an alleged conspiracy grows,
the number of alleged conspirators also grows in the minds of conspiracy
theorists. This is because of an assumption that the alleged
conspirators often have competing interests. For example, if Republican
President George W. Bush
is allegedly responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the
Democratic party did not pursue exposing this alleged plot, that must
mean that both the Democratic and Republican parties are conspirators in
the alleged plot. It also assumes that the alleged conspirators are so
competent that they can fool the entire world, but so incompetent that
even the unskilled conspiracy theorists can find mistakes they make that
prove the fraud. At some point, the number of alleged conspirators,
combined with the contradictions within the alleged conspirators'
interests and competence, becomes so great that maintaining the theory
becomes an obvious exercise in absurdity.
A Moon landing hoax would require the involvement of 411,000 people and would be exposed within 3.68 years;
Climate-change fraud
would require a minimum of 29,083 people (published climate scientists
only) and would be exposed within 26.77 years, or up to 405,000 people,
in which case it would be exposed within 3.70 years;
A vaccination conspiracy would require a minimum of
22,000 people (without drug companies) and would be exposed within at
least 3.15 years and at most 34.78 years depending on the number
involved;
A conspiracy to suppress a cure for cancer would require 714,000 people and would be exposed within 3.17 years.
Grimes's study did not consider exposure by sources
outside of the alleged conspiracy. It only considered exposure from
within the alleged conspiracy through whistleblowers or through
incompetence. Subsequent comments on the PubPeer website point out that these calculations must exclude successful conspiracies
since, by definition, we don't know about them, and are wrong by an
order of magnitude about Bletchley Park, which remained a secret far longer than Grimes' calculations predicted.
Terminology
The term "truth seeker" is adopted by some conspiracy theorists when describing themselves on social media. Conspiracy theorists are often referred to derogatorily as "cookers" in Australia. The term "cooker" is also loosely associated with the far right.
The philosopher Karl Popper described the central problem of conspiracy theories as a form of fundamental attribution error,
where every event is generally perceived as being intentional and
planned, greatly underestimating the effects of randomness and
unintended consequences. In his book The Open Society and Its Enemies,
he used the term "the conspiracy theory of society" to denote the idea
that social phenomena such as "war, unemployment, poverty, shortages... [are] the result of direct design by some powerful individuals and groups". Popper argued that totalitarianism was founded on conspiracy theories which drew on imaginary plots which were driven by paranoid scenarios predicated on tribalism, chauvinism, or racism. He also noted that conspirators very rarely achieved their goal.
Historically, real conspiracies have usually had little effect on history and have had unforeseen consequences
for the conspirators, in contrast to conspiracy theories, which often
posit grand, sinister organizations or world-changing events, the
evidence for which has been erased or obscured. As described by Bruce Cumings, history is instead "moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities".
Conspiracy theories are a prevalent feature of Arab culture and politics. Variants include conspiracies involving colonialism, Zionism, superpowers, oil, and the war on terrorism, which is often referred to in Arab media as a "war against Islam". For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous hoax document purporting to be a Jewish plan for world domination, is commonly read and promoted in the Muslim world.Roger Cohen has suggested that the popularity of conspiracy theories in the Arab world is "the ultimate refuge of the powerless". Al-Mumin Said has noted the danger of such theories, for they "keep us
not only from the truth but also from confronting our faults and
problems". Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri used conspiracy theories about the United States to gain support for al-Qaeda
in the Arab world, and as rhetoric to distinguish themselves from
similar groups, although they may not have believed the conspiratorial
claims themselves.
Conspiracy theories are a prevalent feature of culture and politics in Turkey. Conspiracism is an important phenomenon in understanding Turkish politics. This is explained by a desire to "make up for our lost Ottoman grandeur", the humiliation of perceiving Turkey as part of "the malfunctioning half" of the world, and a "low level of media literacy among the Turkish population."
Harry G. West and others have noted that while conspiracy
theorists may often be dismissed as a fringe minority, certain evidence
suggests that a wide range of the U.S. believes in conspiracy theories.
West also compares those theories to hypernationalism and religious fundamentalism. Theologian Robert Jewett and philosopher John Shelton Lawrence attribute the enduring popularity of conspiracy theories in the U.S. to the Cold War, McCarthyism, and counterculture
rejection of authority. They state that among both the left-wing and
right-wing, there remains a willingness to use real events, such as
Soviet plots, inconsistencies in the Warren Report, and the 9/11 attacks, to support the existence of unverified and ongoing large-scale conspiracies.
In his studies of "American political demonology," historian Michael Paul Rogin
too analyzed this paranoid style of politics that has occurred
throughout American history. Conspiracy theories frequently identify an
imaginary subversive group that is supposedly attacking the nation and
requires the government and allied forces to engage in harsh extra-legal
repression of those threatening subversives. Rogin cites examples from
the Red Scares of 1919 to McCarthy's anti-communist campaign in the
1950s and, more recently, fears of immigrant hordes invading the U.S.
Unlike Hofstadter, Rogin saw these "countersubversive" fears as
frequently coming from those in power and dominant groups instead of
from the dispossessed. Unlike Robert Jewett, Rogin blamed not the
counterculture but America's dominant culture of liberal individualism
and the fears it stimulated to explain the periodic eruption of
irrational conspiracy theories. The Watergate scandal has also been used to bestow legitimacy to other conspiracy theories, with Richard Nixon himself commenting that it served as a "Rorschach ink blot" which invited others to fill in the underlying pattern.
Historian Kathryn S. Olmsted cites three reasons why Americans are prone to believing in government conspiracy theories:
Precedent set by official government-sanctioned
conspiracy theories for propaganda, such as claims of German
infiltration of the U.S. during World WarII or the debunked claim that Saddam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
