Just Dead, Not Alive: Reconsidering Belief in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories.

IF 4.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Science Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1177/09567976231158570
Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Iris Wahring, Laura Mausolf, Nicole Mulas, Shayda Shwan
{"title":"Just Dead, Not Alive: Reconsidering Belief in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories.","authors":"Jan-Willem van Prooijen,&nbsp;Iris Wahring,&nbsp;Laura Mausolf,&nbsp;Nicole Mulas,&nbsp;Shayda Shwan","doi":"10.1177/09567976231158570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A well-established finding is that beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories (e.g., Princess Diana was murdered vs. faked her own death) are positively correlated. This is commonly interpreted as evidence that people systematically believe blatant inconsistencies. Here, we propose that the field has insufficiently acknowledged a compelling alternative explanation: Disbelieving both conspiracy theories also yields a positive correlation. In four preregistered studies (total <i>N</i> = 7,641 adults), online participants evaluated 28 sets of contradictory conspiracy theories. Although the positive correlation was replicated in all cases, this was mostly due to participants who believed the official versions of these events (e.g., Princess Diana died in a car accident). Among participants who disbelieved these official stories, the correlation was inconsistent at best. A mini meta-analysis revealed a negative correlation among these participants, which was particularly due to the dead-or-alive cases. Apparently, researchers should reconsider the notion of systematic belief in contradictory conspiracy theories.</p>","PeriodicalId":20745,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science","volume":"34 6","pages":"670-682"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231158570","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

A well-established finding is that beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories (e.g., Princess Diana was murdered vs. faked her own death) are positively correlated. This is commonly interpreted as evidence that people systematically believe blatant inconsistencies. Here, we propose that the field has insufficiently acknowledged a compelling alternative explanation: Disbelieving both conspiracy theories also yields a positive correlation. In four preregistered studies (total N = 7,641 adults), online participants evaluated 28 sets of contradictory conspiracy theories. Although the positive correlation was replicated in all cases, this was mostly due to participants who believed the official versions of these events (e.g., Princess Diana died in a car accident). Among participants who disbelieved these official stories, the correlation was inconsistent at best. A mini meta-analysis revealed a negative correlation among these participants, which was particularly due to the dead-or-alive cases. Apparently, researchers should reconsider the notion of systematic belief in contradictory conspiracy theories.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
只是死了,不是活着:重新考虑相互矛盾的阴谋论的信仰。
一个公认的发现是,对相互矛盾的阴谋论的信仰(例如,戴安娜王妃是被谋杀的还是伪造自己的死亡)是正相关的。这通常被解释为人们系统性地相信明显不一致的证据。在这里,我们提出,该领域还没有充分承认一个令人信服的替代解释:不相信这两个阴谋论也产生了正相关。在四项预先登记的研究中(总共7641名成年人),在线参与者评估了28组相互矛盾的阴谋论。尽管这种正相关性在所有情况下都得到了证实,但这主要是由于参与者相信这些事件的官方版本(例如,戴安娜王妃死于车祸)。在不相信这些官方故事的参与者中,这种相关性充其量是不一致的。一项小型荟萃分析显示,这些参与者之间存在负相关,特别是由于死或活的病例。显然,研究人员应该重新考虑系统地相信相互矛盾的阴谋论的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Science
Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Psychological Science, the flagship journal of The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society), is a leading publication in the field with a citation ranking/impact factor among the top ten worldwide. It publishes authoritative articles covering various domains of psychological science, including brain and behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology. In addition to full-length articles, the journal features summaries of new research developments and discussions on psychological issues in government and public affairs. "Psychological Science" is published twelve times annually.
期刊最新文献
Gaze Behavior Reveals Expectations of Potential Scene Changes. Why Do Children Think Words Are Mutually Exclusive? The Affect Misattribution Procedure Revisited: An Informational Account. Narrative Identity, Traits, and Trajectories of Depression and Well-Being: A 9-Year Longitudinal Study. People Place Larger Bets When Risky Choices Provide a Postbet Option to Cash Out.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1