A conspiracy theory (CT) explains an event by suggesting that the public is being misled about the true events, often with the implication that two or more individuals are secretly collaborating to achieve a hidden agenda, frequently for harmful purposes. CTs mainly affect how people understand science and new technology, it can lead to rejection of scientific evidence related to genetically modified foods and climatic changes. This can cause resistance to health care programs and lower vaccine acceptance mainly during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). CT influences political behavior by connecting to religious and ethnic groups, while few people believe in CTs by having a “closed mind. This study was published in the European Journal of Social Psychology.
Current research has differentiated a general conspiracist mentality from specific conspiracy beliefs. It explores the assumptions and demonstrations of CTs that do not exist in isolation but often draw upon widely accepted non-conspiracist ideas to reinforce and validate their stance. The research examines how conspiracist and non-conspiracist beliefs are interconnected through various semantic and pragmatic relationships that are referred to as ‘modalities of belief coexistence.’ The terms dialogicality and belief coexistence are used interchangeably to describe this dynamic. Other belief systems endorse CTs to utilize these adaptive modalities to interpret and navigate the world.
Recent studies have further explored the conceptualization of belief in CTs, distinguishing between the broader ‘conspiracist mentality’ and specific conspiracist beliefs (Imhoff et al., 2024; Nera, 2024a). For instance, Nera (2024b) has compared a conspiracist mentality to a conspiracist worldview (Dagnall et al., 2015), which is built upon a set of assumptions with identifiable descriptive and prescriptive belief elements (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). This perspective aligns with the typology proposed by Franks et al. (2017), which was expanded by reconstructing conspiracist worldviews by analyzing belief content and the epistemic, ontological, and agentic foundations underpinning these beliefs.
Additionally, the role of non-conspiracist beliefs in shaping and elaborating conspiracist beliefs has been highlighted in recent research (Meuer, Oeberst, & Imhoff, 2022). This study contributes to the ongoing discourse by examining how the interplay between conspiracist and non-conspiracist beliefs informs this dynamic.
This study included a total of 41 members (male 26 and female 15) with age range from 25 to 81 years (average age = 48.8 years). After discussing the study with the participants, only 31 members showed interest in the interview process. Moreover, 2 members were selected from the David Icke event, and 8 by snowball sampling.
In this study, Semi-structured interviews were conducted one-to-one and audio-recorded between May 2016 and August 2016 in Southern England, where 23 were from London, 9 from Kent, 3 from Suffolk, 3 from Sussex, and 1 from Buckinghamshire. Additionally, 2 UK-based members were interviewed through Skype. The sections involved in the interview were personal background, interactions, groups, particular CTs of interest, spiritual beliefs, media use, and research approach. The average length of the interview was 113 minutes (Standard deviation = 28.8) with a range of 75 to 184 minutes.
Thematic analysis of these interviews identified 5 modalities of belief coexistence such as analogical beliefs, synthetic beliefs, cognitive dissonance between beliefs, integrative beliefs, and target-dependent beliefs. All these modalities covered the various beliefs related to the future, in groups, self, reality, outgroups, and action with a focus on topics like religion, politics, society, and science.
This study highlights CTs as rarely independent and self-contained because they function within a broader framework of belief systems. It suggests that CTs engage in an ongoing dialogue with non-conspiracist beliefs, which interplays the understanding of formation, evolution, and persistence. These challenge the traditional view in research on conspiracist mentality and often assume that CTs are static and fully formed constructs by ignoring their adaptive and dialogical nature.
References: Hall MS, Franks B, Bauer MW. Dialogicality and conspiracy theory: The coexistence of conspiracist and non-conspiracist beliefs. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2025:1–16. doi:10.1002/ejsp.31201
