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.
Publisher
Frontiers in Psychology
Published On
Jul 08, 2013
Authors
Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas
Tags
9/11 conspiracy theories
online discussion
conspiracist comments
conventionalist comments
alternative explanations
mistrust
belief systems
Related Publications
Explore these studies to deepen your understanding of the subject.