The DOI matches its Crossref record.
American Conspiracy Theories
Abstract
Abstract Conspiracies theories are some of the most striking features in the American political landscape: the Kennedy assassination, aliens at Roswell, subversion by Masons, Jews, Catholics, or communists, and modern movements like Birtherism and Trutherism. But what do we really know about conspiracy theories? Do they share general causes? Are they becoming more common? More dangerous? Who is targeted and why? Who are the conspiracy theorists? How has technology affected conspiracy theorizing? This book draws on three sources of original, systematic, data—120,000 letters to the editor of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune from 1890 and 2010, a two-wave survey around the 2012 presidential election, and a representative sample of Internet discussions—to offer the first century-long view of these issues. Many popular explanations find little support, but an explicitly political explanation fares well. To succeed, conspiracy theories need to follow a strategic logic that mirrors shifts in power. From this perspective, conspiracy theories are a form of threat perception that tracks foreign and domestic power asymmetries to focus attention, integrate groups, and recover from setbacks.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“People on the losing (vs. winning) side of political processes also appear more likely to believe conspiracy theories (Uscinski & Parent, 2014).”
From The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (2017) · cites this paper as Uscinski & Parent, 2014
In the citing paper
“Members of groups who have objectively low (vs. high) status because of their ethnicity (Crocker, Luhtanen, Broadnax, & Blaine, 1999) or income (Uscinski & Parent, 2014) are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories.”
From The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (2017) · cites this paper as Uscinski & Parent, 2014
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding Conspiracy Theories
Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12568 · Cited by 1,511
Self-citationThe Psychology of Conspiracy Theories
Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721417718261 · Cited by 1,316
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183
Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations
van Prooijen, J.-W., & Douglas, K. M. (2017) · Memory Studies · doi:10.1177/1750698017701615 · Cited by 764
Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2017) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.12453 · Cited by 446
Metadata
- Authors
- Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Miami (US)
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2014-09-08
- OpenAlex
- W1821499963
- Cited by
- 939
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 116 · 2025: 154 · 2024: 135 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 20.38
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- conspiracy theories, American politics, threat perception, power imbalance, political strategy, John F. Kennedy assassination, Roswell incident, masons, anti-communism, 2012 presidential election, online discourse, history of conspiracy theories
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review