“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

This study investigates the online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories by analyzing a large sample of conspiracist and conventionalist comments on news websites. The researchers examined the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations versus rejecting conventional explanations. Conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against opposing interpretations and less likely to argue in favor of their own, while conventionalists showed the opposite pattern. However, conspiracists were more likely to offer explanations. Conspiracists also expressed more mistrust and made more positive references to other conspiracy theories. They were reluctant to label their beliefs as "conspiracy theories." Conventionalist arguments tended to be more hostile. These findings suggest that the conspiracist worldview prioritizes rejecting official explanations over promoting specific alternative theories.

Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas