» Articles » PMID: 26812482

On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2016 Jan 27
PMID 26812482
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy. Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs; these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants-the results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable and prone to failure. The theory presented here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be possible.

Citing Articles

From Conspiracy to Hesitancy: The Longitudinal Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Perceived Vaccine Effectiveness.

Salazar-Fernandez C, Baeza-Rivera M, Manriquez-Robles D, Salinas-Onate N, Sallam M Vaccines (Basel). 2023; 11(7).

PMID: 37514966 PMC: 10386435. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11071150.


The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review.

OMahony C, Brassil M, Murphy G, Linehan C PLoS One. 2023; 18(4):e0280902.

PMID: 37018172 PMC: 10075392. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280902.


Belief correlations with parental vaccine hesitancy: Results from a national survey.

Matthews L, Nowak S, Gidengil C, Chen C, Stubbersfield J, Tehrani J Am Anthropol. 2022; 124(2):291-306.

PMID: 35601007 PMC: 9111381. DOI: 10.1111/aman.13714.


[Conspiracy theories and COVID-19: How do conspiracy beliefs arise?].

Bottemanne H Encephale. 2022; 48(5):571-582.

PMID: 35597682 PMC: 8818386. DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2021.12.005.


Conspiracy beliefs and distrust of science predicts reluctance of vaccine uptake of politically right-wing citizens.

Winter T, Riordan B, Scarf D, Jose P Vaccine. 2022; 40(12):1896-1903.

PMID: 35190210 PMC: 8856386. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.01.039.


References
1.
Cassileth B . Alternative and complementary medicine. Separating the wheat from the chaff. Cancer. 1999; 86(10):1900-2. View

2.
Milgrom P, Reisine S . Oral health in the United States: the post-fluoride generation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000; 21:403-36. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.403. View

3.
Schmidt K, Ernst E . MMR vaccination advice over the Internet. Vaccine. 2003; 21(11-12):1044-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0264-410x(02)00628-x. View

4.
Zimmerman R, Wolfe R, Fox D, Fox J, Nowalk M, Troy J . Vaccine criticism on the World Wide Web. J Med Internet Res. 2005; 7(2):e17. PMC: 1550643. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7.2.e17. View

5.
Leiserowitz A . American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous?. Risk Anal. 2006; 25(6):1433-42. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x. View