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

Conspiracy theories, defined as allegations of secret plots by powerful entities to deceive the public, have become increasingly prominent with the rise of the internet. This study investigates the psychological underpinnings of conspiracy belief and how they manifest in online persuasive communication. Previous research has focused on individual differences (mistrust, powerlessness, low self-esteem) and broader belief systems (ideologies, worldviews) in shaping conspiracy beliefs. However, the role of persuasive communication strategies employed by conspiracists and conventionalists remains under-explored. This research seeks to address this gap by analyzing online comments on news articles related to 9/11, a topic with a significant online conspiracy community, to explore whether conspiracist communication focuses more on rejecting established narratives or promoting alternative ones. Understanding the communication strategies of those who believe in conspiracy theories can help us better understand the spread and influence of these beliefs, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the psychological processes involved.

Existing research emphasizes the correlation between conspiracy beliefs and various individual differences, such as mistrust of authority, feelings of powerlessness, and low self-esteem. Studies have also shown a link between conspiracy beliefs and broader belief systems or worldviews. For example, individuals with traditional religious beliefs might reject conspiracy theories that contradict their faith, while those with New Age beliefs might be more receptive. The concept of a "conspiracist worldview" has emerged, suggesting a generalized tendency to reject official explanations and a pattern of interconnected beliefs in various conspiracy theories, even if contradictory. This worldview posits that the opposition to official narratives is paramount, rather than the specifics of individual theories. This is supported by the observation that unrelated conspiracy theories often correlate positively, suggesting a shared underlying belief system. Existing research is largely based on questionnaires or emerging experimental approaches, lacking analyses of real-world persuasive communication.

This study employed archival research, analyzing comments from four major news websites (ABC News, CNN, The Independent, and The Daily Mail) on articles related to 9/11, collected between July 1 and December 31, 2011. The researchers focused on persuasive comments, excluding those consisting solely of insults, meta-discussion, external links, or verbatim copies. The comments were then coded for several variables: 1) Conspiracist vs. conventionalist tone; 2) Mentions of other conspiracy theories (favorable and unfavorable); 3) Expressions of mistrust and powerlessness; 4) Advocacy of the commenter's own explanation; 5) Derogation of the opposing explanation; 6) Direct provision of an explanation for 9/11 events; 7) Usage of the term "conspiracy theory"; and 8) Hostility. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient. The study analyzed 2174 comments from 1156 unique authors, with a separate analysis conducted at both the comment and author levels. The 9/11 topic was selected due to its well-established online conspiracy community and the high volume of online discussions surrounding the tenth anniversary of the attacks.

The analysis revealed several key findings. First, conspiracist comments mentioned more unrelated conspiracy theories favorably and fewer unfavorably compared to conventionalist comments. This supports the idea of a interconnected conspiracist worldview. Second, conspiracist comments were significantly more likely to express mistrust. Third, the rhetorical style of conspiracists and conventionalists differed significantly. Conspiracists focused more on derogating the opposing explanation (official account) than on advocating their own alternative explanation, while conventionalists showed the opposite pattern. Unexpectedly, conspiracists were more likely to explicitly offer an alternative explanation than conventionalists, often in the form of a statement rather than a detailed argument. Fourth, conventionalist comments exhibited significantly higher hostility. Finally, the use of the term "conspiracy theory" revealed a reluctance among both groups to self-apply it. Conspiracists often applied the term to the official explanation and frequently disputed its use when applied to their own beliefs.

The findings support the hypothesis that a central component of the conspiracist worldview is a generalized rejection of official narratives. Conspiracists prioritize refuting established accounts, rather than fully developing and supporting their own alternatives. This suggests that the core of conspiracy belief lies less in adherence to specific alternative explanations and more in a fundamental distrust of official versions of events. The unexpectedly high rate of explicit explanations by conspiracists may reflect the use of simple, slogan-like statements to convey their core message of distrust. The greater hostility among conventionalists may be attributed to the need for majority group members to enforce conformity to the dominant narrative. The study's findings highlight the importance of examining the communication strategies employed by different groups to better understand the spread and influence of conspiracy theories.

This study demonstrates the utility of analyzing online discussions to understand the psychological underpinnings of conspiracy beliefs. The findings support the importance of generalized opposition to official narratives within the conspiracist worldview. Further research could investigate the persuasive efficacy of different communication strategies employed by conspiracists and conventionalists. Exploring the role of specific online communities and the dynamic evolution of conspiracy theories within online spaces would also be beneficial.

The study's reliance on online comments introduces potential limitations. The self-selected nature of online participation might not fully represent the broader population's views. The anonymity afforded by online platforms could influence the honesty and tone of comments. Furthermore, the focus on persuasive comments might exclude other relevant forms of online communication. The potential impact of rhetorical strategies and self-presentation on the observed patterns should be further investigated.