The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures
Open accessAbstract
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
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
“Similarly, different strategies for successful intervention may apply for people who hold strong anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs than those who do not hold strong beliefs [44].”
From The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions (2014) · cites this paper as [44]
In the citing paper
“Conspiracist ideation is also typically immune to falsification because contradictory evidence (e.g., climate scientists being exonerated of accusations) can be accommodated by broadening the scope of the conspiracy (exonerations are a whitewash), often with considerable creativity [32].”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“evidence against conspiracy theories is often construed as evidence for them, because the evidence is interpreted as arising from the conspiracy in question”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“These general and robust findings help identify communicative means by which the motivated reasoning can be attenuated or circumvented [5], [32], [38], [50].”
From The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science (2013) · cites this paper as [32]
Citations
Cites
Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom
Pigden, C. (2007) · Episteme · doi:10.3366/epi.2007.4.2.219 · Cited by 86
Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development
Clarke, S. (2007) · Episteme · doi:10.3366/epi.2007.4.2.167 · Cited by 67
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The spreading of misinformation online
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113 · Cited by 2,407
“This disintermediated environment can foster confusion about causation, and thus encourage speculation, rumors, and mistrust (6).”
BackgroundUnderstanding 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
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 · Cited by 1,360
“These include work on conspiracy belief [9], superstition [10], rumors [11], bullshit receptivity [12], andmisperceptions [13], among others.”
BackgroundThe Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089177 · Cited by 1,232
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222
Metadata
- Authors
- Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Political Philosophy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04-13
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 202-227
- ISSN
- 0963-8016 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9760
- OpenAlex
- W2009369609
- Cited by
- 1,050
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 92 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 161 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- nrs.harvard.edu
- Locations
- Journal of Political Philosophy (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Keywords
- conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, cognitive errors, epistemology, misinformation, extremist groups, countering disinformation, public policy
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