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

Conspiracy theories, alleging powerful entities secretly plotting sinister acts, have gained prominence online. Existing research highlights the role of belief systems in accepting or rejecting such theories, showing correlations between conspiracy beliefs and mistrust, powerlessness, low self-esteem, and Machiavellianism. While questionnaire-based studies dominate the field, this research explores online discussions as a rich source of data. A recent development emphasizes the impact of broader belief systems and worldviews on conspiracy beliefs. The concept of a "conspiracist worldview" suggests a generalized rejection of official narratives, making the specifics of individual theories less important than the overarching disbelief in authority. This study tests this hypothesis by analyzing online comments on 9/11-related news articles, leveraging the voluminous and readily available data in news website comment sections. The 9/11 Truth Movement and the skeptic movement provide a fertile ground for this investigation, offering ample material for studying persuasive communication strategies employed by both sides. The research acknowledges the potential limitation of analyzing persuasive comments, recognizing the interplay between internal beliefs and strategic communication to persuade audiences. While there is a degree of uncertainty regarding internal validity due to the possibility that commenters' argumentation might reflect strategic considerations, this study assumes that commenters generally tend to use arguments they would find convincing. This approach allows for insights into the structure of their belief systems and attitudes.

The paper reviews existing literature on the psychology of conspiracy belief, noting the correlation between conspiracy beliefs and various personality traits and psychological states, including mistrust, feelings of powerlessness, low self-esteem, and Machiavellianism. It highlights the growing recognition of the role of broader belief systems and ideologies in shaping acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. Studies examining the link between religious beliefs (traditional Christian vs. New Age) and conspiracy theories are referenced, along with research showing the influence of libertarian free-market ideology on the rejection of climate science. The concept of a "conspiracist worldview" is discussed, emphasizing the generalized opposition to official narratives as a key element. The authors cite previous research showing the positive correlation between beliefs in unrelated conspiracy theories, even contradictory ones, suggesting a higher-order belief system at play. The limitations of existing questionnaire-based studies and the opportunity presented by analyzing online discourse are highlighted.

The study analyzed comments from four major news websites (ABC News, CNN, The Independent, and The Daily Mail) on articles related to 9/11, collected between July 1st and December 31st, 2011. The researchers selected articles using keywords related to 9/11 and the event's details. Only persuasive comments—those containing original content intended to persuade—were included. Non-persuasive comments (insults, meta-discussions, external links, verbatim quotes) were excluded. Comments were coded for various factors: conspiracist vs. conventionalist tone; mentions of other conspiracy theories (favorably or unfavorably); expressions of mistrust and powerlessness; advocacy of one's own interpretation; derogation of the opposing interpretation; statements directly offering explanations; use of the term "conspiracy theory"; and hostility level. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient. The study analyzed both the comments themselves and the mean values for each variable for each unique author, mitigating the potential bias from prolific commenters.

The study analyzed 2174 comments (1459 conspiracist, 715 conventionalist). Conspiracist comments showed a higher tendency to mention other conspiracy theories favorably and fewer unfavorably. They also expressed more mistrust. Regarding argumentation style, conspiracist comments focused more on refuting conventional explanations (64% vs. 44%) while conventionalist comments more often advocated their own position (56% vs. 31%). Surprisingly, conspiracists more often offered direct explanations for the events, although often in the form of slogans without substantial evidence. Conventionalist comments were significantly more hostile (M = 2.08 vs. M = 1.44). Few participants willingly applied the term "conspiracy theory" to their own views. Conventionalists were more likely to label opposing views as conspiracy theories. These results were consistent across both comment and author-level analyses, indicating robustness despite the presence of prolific commenters.

The results support the hypothesis that the conspiracist worldview is primarily based on rejecting official narratives rather than on believing specific alternative theories. Conspiracists' focus on refuting the official explanation rather than building comprehensive alternatives aligns with this. The higher hostility in conventionalist comments is likely due to their status as the majority viewpoint, reinforcing conformity. The reluctance of participants to self-identify as "conspiracy theorists" highlights the social stigma associated with this label. The study also considered alternative interpretations such as rhetorical congruency, noting that the use of other conspiracy theories might reflect argumentative strategies rather than genuine belief. The use of analogies to enhance plausibility or to discredit opposing views suggests the strategic nature of online communication.

The study confirms previous findings regarding the correlation between conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and inter-correlated beliefs in various conspiracy theories. The key contribution lies in demonstrating the greater emphasis on refuting official narratives than on promoting specific alternative explanations within the conspiracist worldview. Future research should explore these findings through experimental methods, testing the persuasiveness of evidence presented as refutation versus support for specific theories and analyzing the impact of labeling beliefs as "conspiracy theories." This study emphasizes the importance of considering belief systems and strategic communication when analyzing online discussions surrounding conspiracy theories.

The study acknowledges potential limitations, particularly the challenge of determining the extent to which online comments reflect internal beliefs versus strategic communication. The exclusion of certain types of comments (insults, meta-discussions, etc.) might have skewed the hostility results. The reliance on readily available online data may limit the generalizability of findings to specific online communities. The study also notes that the arguments used might be drawn from other sources, rather than being solely the product of the commenters' own reasoning, although the arguments selected likely still reveal something about the decision-making processes of those making the comments.