Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms

The transition to net-zero emissions requires a rapid expansion of wind energy, bringing wind farms closer to communities and increasing public exposure. Although the public is often positive toward wind energy in the abstract, local siting attempts frequently face strong resistance, sometimes amplified by organized disinformation about health or other harms. Building on evidence from other domains (e.g., vaccines, climate science), the authors focus on conspiracy mentality—the general belief that malevolent, secretive elites orchestrate events—as a potential driver of wind farm opposition. Given that acceptance of wind projects is strongly influenced by trust, fairness, and perceived integrity of authorities, and that conspiracy mentality reflects distrust of elites and a preference for counter-mainstream views, the research tests whether conspiracy mentality and specific conspiracy beliefs about wind projects predict resistance to local wind farms. The study also evaluates whether providing information about benefits can increase support, and whether effects differ when information is balanced with counterarguments or when people endorse specific conspiracy theories about the project.

Prior research indicates that cultural worldviews and ideology shape acceptance of science and technologies. Conspiracy mentality has been linked to skepticism about climate science and vaccines, with general conspiratorial thinking often manifesting as specific conspiracy beliefs in concrete contexts. In the wind energy domain, misinformation about health effects persists despite numerous studies showing no causal links to adverse health outcomes. Acceptance of wind projects depends on integrity-based trust, justice, and fairness, suggesting that distrustful worldviews could undermine support. Communication research shows mixed evidence on whether two-sided (pro and con) messaging is more persuasive than one-sided messaging; in polarized contexts, denialist rhetoric can dampen acceptance of climate science. Inoculation and prebunking strategies have proven effective in reducing susceptibility to conspiracy theories and misinformation, suggesting a potential preventive approach for wind energy acceptance.

Eight pre-registered online studies were conducted in Germany with adult participants (total N = 4,170; Studies 1–7 convenience samples via Clickworker/Prolific; Study 8 nationally quota-balanced via Respondi by gender, age, education, and state). Participants imagined a local referendum on constructing five wind turbines near their community and indicated their likelihood (0–100%) of voting in favor. Conspiracy mentality was measured with a 12-item scale administered at the end of surveys; in Studies 3–8, a six-item scale assessed specific conspiracy beliefs about the referendum (e.g., alleged withholding of information or secret arrangements for financial gain). Experimental manipulations included: (a) a one-sided pro-information leaflet ostensibly from the municipality (arguments on emissions reduction, energy security, and financial benefits); (b) a balanced condition presenting equal pro and contra arguments (in Studies 4–6 and 8; either from opposing stakeholders or the municipality presenting both sides); (c) in Study 2, leaflet source was manipulated (municipality vs energy company); (d) in Study 3, referendum framing was reversed (against vs in favor). Participants were randomly assigned to conditions. Exclusion criteria (pre-registered) included age <18, failed attention checks, multiple submissions, psychology students (except Study 8 to preserve representativeness), language issues (not applied in Study 8), and statistical outliers. Primary analyses: Study 8 used linear multiple regression predicting voting intentions from conspiracy mentality while controlling for age, gender, education, political orientation (1 left to 7 right), and state category (high vs low installed onshore wind capacity per km2). Merged analyses across all studies examined effects of communication conditions using orthogonal contrasts and interactions with mean-centered conspiracy mentality; analogous models were run with specific conspiracy beliefs. Two-sided tests were used. Analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS v25. Data and code were made publicly available via PsychArchives.

- Across Studies 1–7 (aggregated N ≈ 2,055), conspiracy mentality was negatively correlated with willingness to vote for nearby turbines: r(2,055) = −0.34, p < 0.001. - In the nationally quota-balanced Study 8 (N = 2,115), conspiracy mentality strongly predicted lower support over and above age, gender, education, political orientation, and state: b = −7.94, 95% CI [−8.90, −6.98], t(2,106) = −16.23, p < 0.001; r = −0.33. Each 1 SD increase in conspiracy mentality (M = 4.01, SD = 1.34) was associated with an 11-point decrease in support (e.g., from ~65% to ~54%). - Relative predictive strength: conspiracy mentality explained ~5 times more variance than political orientation and ~20 times more than age, gender, education, or state. - Pro-information (one-sided) increased support compared to no information in merged analyses (N = 4,170): b = 4.66, 95% CI [3.74, 5.57], t(4,164) = 9.98, p < 0.001. The effect was larger among those higher in conspiracy mentality (interaction b = 0.76, 95% CI [0.05, 1.46], t(4,164) = 2.11, p = 0.035). - Source robustness: Effects of pro-information were unchanged when provided by industry vs government (Study 2). Referendum initiator (opponents vs supporters) did not moderate main effects (Study 3). - Balanced communication (pro + contra) reduced the effectiveness of pro arguments relative to one-sided pro: b = −3.19, 95% CI [−4.21, −2.17], t(4,164) = −6.13, p < 0.001. Still, balanced exceeded no information slightly: b = 1.47, 95% CI [0.45, 2.49], t(4,164) = 2.81, p = 0.005. - Specific conspiracy beliefs about the referendum were prevalent (M = 3.23, SD = 1.39; 26% above midpoint) and more strongly associated with opposition than general conspiracy mentality: b = −11.51, 95% CI [−12.33, −10.69], t(2,106) = −27.45, p < 0.001; r = −0.51. Each 1 SD increase corresponded to ~16-point lower support. - When both predictors were included, specific beliefs dominated: specific b = −10.83, 95% CI [−11.84, −9.82], t(2,105) = −21.01, p < 0.001; conspiracy mentality b = −1.25, 95% CI [−2.32, −0.17], t(2,105) = −2.28, p = 0.023. - Pro-information still increased support among those high in specific conspiracy beliefs: b = 2.86, 95% CI [1.95, 3.76], p < 0.001, but the effect was about half the size of that observed with general conspiracy mentality. - Under balanced communication, there was no reliable improvement among those high in specific conspiracy beliefs: b = 0.54, 95% CI [−0.42, 1.50], t(3,747) = 1.10, p = 0.270. - No evidence of backfire effects was observed from information provision among high-conspiracy individuals.

The studies demonstrate that conspiracy beliefs are a major psychological barrier to local acceptance of wind farms. General conspiracy mentality substantially predicts opposition even after controlling for demographics and political orientation, and specific conspiracy theories about the project predict opposition even more strongly. These findings suggest that distrust in authorities and a preference for counter-mainstream narratives translate into resistance to local wind projects. Importantly, concise pro-information messaging can ameliorate opposition, with the largest benefits among those high in conspiracy mentality, indicating that such individuals are not unreachable through information. However, the efficacy of messaging is attenuated in realistic, competitive information environments where counterarguments are also presented, and it is particularly weak among those endorsing specific conspiracy theories about the project. Taken together, results indicate that while targeted information campaigns can help, preventive strategies that build resilience to misinformation before specific conspiracy narratives crystallize may be more impactful. The German case, as an early adopter with ambitious wind expansion plans and pockets of organized resistance, provides insights likely relevant to other nations pursuing rapid decarbonization.

This research identifies conspiracy mentality and, more strongly, specific conspiracy beliefs about wind projects as key predictors of opposition to local wind farms. Brief, pro-wind informational messaging increases voting support, including among individuals high in conspiracy mentality, though benefits diminish in the presence of counterarguments and among those endorsing specific conspiracies. Practical implications include prioritizing early, proactive communication and considering preventive approaches (e.g., inoculation/prebunking) to reduce susceptibility to misinformation. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to clarify causal pathways from general conspiracy mentality to specific conspiracy beliefs and subsequent voting intentions, test communication strategies in field settings with diverse sources and social networks, and assess generalizability across countries and policy contexts.

The studies were cross-sectional experimental vignettes and not designed to establish causal effects of conspiracy beliefs on voting behavior; longitudinal or field experiments are needed. Most samples were convenience-based online panels in Germany, with one nationally quota-balanced sample; findings may not generalize beyond the German context or to actual referenda. The referendum scenario was hypothetical, and measured intentions may differ from real-world behavior. Effects of messaging were assessed over brief exposures and within controlled survey environments; real-world information ecosystems with sustained, polarized debate may further moderate outcomes.