The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science
Abstract
Conspiracy theories are immensely popular today, yet in the social sciences they are often dismissed as “irrational,” “bad science,” or “religious belief.” In this study, we take a cultural sociological approach and argue that this persistent disqualification is a form of “boundary work” that obscures rather than clarifies how and why conspiracy theorists challenge the epistemic authority of science. Based on a qualitative study of the Dutch conspiracy milieu, we distinguish three critiques that are motivated by encounters with scientific experts in everyday life: the alleged dogmatism of modern science, the intimate relation of scientific knowledge production with vested interests, and the exclusion of lay knowledge by scientific experts forming a global “power elite.” Given their critique that resonates with social scientific understandings of science, it is concluded that conspiracy theorists compete with (social) scientists in complex battles for epistemic authority in a broader field of knowledge contestation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
(2006) · Cited by 18,730
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age
Giddens, A. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003060963-59 · Cited by 13,399
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
Bijker, W. E., & Latour, B. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105094 · Cited by 10,770
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-4888 · Cited by 9,298
(1987) · Cited by 8,955
Powers, C. H., & Giddens, A. (1988) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579442 · Cited by 8,854
Baudrillard, J. (1995) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.9904 · Cited by 6,884
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Aaronovitch D, 2010, Voodoo Histories: How Conspiracy Theory Has Shaped Modern History
- Campbell C, 1972, Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain, 5, 119
- Falzon MA, 2012, Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Practice and Locality in Contemporary Research
- Fassin D, 2011, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 17, 39
- Foucault M, 1970, The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences
- Glaser BG, 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
- Sheldrake R, 2013, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Inquiry
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.
Römer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356 · Cited by 1,065
Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science
Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520924259 · Cited by 472
Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain
van Prooijen, J., & Douglas, K. M. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2530 · Cited by 483
Conspiracy Theories: Evolved Functions and Psychological Mechanisms
van Prooijen, J.-W., & van Vugt, M. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691618774270 · Cited by 414
Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them
(2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.001.0001 · Cited by 294
Populist knowledge: ‘Post-truth’ repertoires of contesting epistemic authorities
Ylä-Anttila, T. (2018) · European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology · doi:10.1080/23254823.2017.1414620 · Cited by 293
Mistrust and misinformation: A two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories
Pierre, J. M. (2020) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1362 · Cited by 202
Achterberg, P., de Koster, W., & van der Waal, J. (2015) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662515617367 · Cited by 158
Mari, S., de Zúñiga, H. G., Suerdem, A. K., Hanke, K., Brown, G. P., Vilar, R., Boer, D., & Bilewicz, M. (2021) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12754 · Cited by 182
Suldovsky, B. (2016) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516629750 · Cited by 147
“…addition, recent work within science communication has utilized epistemic authority as a framework to understand how competing voices battle with science for epistemic voice (e.g. Harambam and Aupers, 2015) and the a priori decision to trust sources other than science (e.g. Hildering et al., 2013).”
Background‘I Am Not a Conspiracy Theorist’: Relational Identifications in the Dutch Conspiracy Milieu
Harambam, J., & Aupers, S. (2016) · Cultural Sociology · doi:10.1177/1749975516661959 · Cited by 158
“…do not only resist the stigma of being labelled a ‘conspiracy theorist’, but openly contest the authority of the modern state, capitalism and science (Harambam and Aupers, 2015) and are hence involved in ‘interpretive contests’ (Melley, 2000) or ‘discursive struggles for power’ (Bratich, 2008).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBelieving in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data
Mancosu, M., Vassallo, S., & Vezzoni, C. (2017) · South European Society & Politics · doi:10.1080/13608746.2017.1359894 · Cited by 142
Constructing alternative facts: Populist expertise and the QAnon conspiracy
Marwick, A. E., & Partin, W. C. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221090201 · Cited by 185
“Scholars in anthropology, cultural studies, and sociology instead consider conspiracy theories as social phenomena (Bratich, 2008; Harambam and Aupers, 2015).”
BackgroundLantian, A., Müller, D., Nurra, C., Klein, O., Berjot, S., & Pantazi, M. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2498 · Cited by 117
Hopp, T., Ferrucci, P., & Vargo, C. J. (2020) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz022 · Cited by 126
Online communication as a window to conspiracist worldviews
Wood, M. J., & Douglas, K. M. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00836 · Cited by 110
“A great deal of research into interpersonal trust indicates that low trust is associated with beliefs in conspiracy theories (Hamsher et al., 1968; Wright and Arbuthnot, 1974; Goertzel, 1994; Yelland and Stone, 1996; Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999; Leman and Cinnirella, 2013).”
BackgroundIsmail, D. K. B., Kane, A., McJury, M., & Kenny, I. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/38786 · Cited by 108
Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Jurkovič, M. (2019) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3595 · Cited by 103
Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok
Solea, A. I., & Sugiura, L. (2023) · European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10610-023-09559-5 · Cited by 105
Girschik, V. C., Svystunova, L., & Lysova, E. I. (2020) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726720970275 · Cited by 92
“example, researchers of conspiracy theorists recruit participants by identifying and participating in the relevant events they might attend (Harambam and Aupers, 2015).”
BackgroundCensorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics
Shir-Raz, Y., Elisha, E., Martin, B. G., Ronel, N., & Guetzkow, J. (2022) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4 · Cited by 82
The digital transformation of knowledge order: a model for the analysis of the epistemic crisis
Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Fröhlich, R., Hanitzsch, T., Reinemann, C., & Schindler, J. (2023) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2023.2169950 · Cited by 92
“Generalized skepticism and conspiracy allegations against epistemic authorities such as journalism and science (Harambam & Aupers, 2015) are often motivated by political polarization and tribal epistemology, by an esoteric understanding of the self as the highest epistemic authority (Houtman &…”
BackgroundBartsch, A., Neuberger, C., Stark, B., Karnowski, V., Maurer, M., Pentzold, C., Quandt, T., Quiring, O., & Schemer, C. (2024) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtae020 · Cited by 95
Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S., & Füchslin, T. (2020) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edaa026 · Cited by 72
How (Ir)rational is it to believe in contradictory conspiracy theories?
Lukić, P., Žeželj, I., & Stanković, B. (2019) · Europe’s Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i1.1690 · Cited by 59
“This is consistent with the finding of Harambam and Aupers (2015) that people who believe in conspiracy theories perceive themselves as “skeptics”.”
ResultHarambam, J. (2021) · Journal for Cultural Research · doi:10.1080/14797585.2021.1886424 · Cited by 70
“As conspiracy theorists often argue, they distrust science and its knowledge because they feel it is corrupted through its collusion with vested interests (Harambam & Aupers, 2015).”
InfluentialSelf-citationConspiracy beliefs and science rejection
(2022) · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101392 · Cited by 62
Schäfer, M. S., & Fähnrich, B. (2020) · Journal of Communication Management · doi:10.1108/jcom-04-2020-0034 · Cited by 61
Conspiracy Theories, Populism, and Epistemic Autonomy
Harris, K. R. (2022) · Journal of the American Philosophical Association · doi:10.1017/apa.2021.44 · Cited by 59
Nera, K., & Schöpfer, C. (2023) · Theory & Psychology · doi:10.1177/09593543231155891 · Cited by 59
“Indeed, as documented by Harambam and Aupers (2014), “when alternative understandings of ‘how things work’ are expressed by conspiracy theorists, they do not just question the knowledge of scientific experts, but also the institutional and social position on which their authority is based” (p. 471).”
Background“Why won’t they just vaccinate?” Horse owner risk perception and uptake of the Hendra virus vaccine
Manyweathers, J., Field, H. E., Longnecker, N. E., Agho, K., Smith, C. S., & Taylor, M. R. (2017) · BMC Veterinary Research · doi:10.1186/s12917-017-1006-7 · Cited by 60
“Acknowledgement of such expressions might enhance direct and transparent discourse around Hendra virus [50, 51] and continue into improved acceptance of recommended strategies.”
BackgroundWho Believes in Conspiracy Theories in Great Britain and Europe?
Drochon, H. H. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0022 · Cited by 62
Conspiracy theories and social movements studies: A research agenda
Bertuzzi, N. (2021) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.12945 · Cited by 65
Lantian, A., Müller, D., Nurra, C., Klein, O., Berjot, S., & Pantazi, M. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/bgzt4 · Cited by 53
Paul, K. T., Eberl, J., & Partheymüller, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.671896 · Cited by 53
Harambam, J., & Aupers, S. (2019) · European Journal of Cultural Studies · doi:10.1177/1367549419886045 · Cited by 56
Self-citationParticipatory conspiracy culture: Believing, doubting and playing with conspiracy theories on Reddit
Wildt, L. D., & Aupers, S. (2023) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565231178914 · Cited by 51
“…that academics writing about conspiracy theories in such a moral, pejorative and dismissive sense are involved in a form of scienti fi c “ boundary work ” to “ purify ” the social sciences and sustain its epistemic authority in a broader context of knowledge production (Harambam and Aupers, 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citationChannelling discontent? Non-voters, populist party voters, and their meaningful political agency
Kemmers, R. (2017) · European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology · doi:10.1080/23254823.2017.1339203 · Cited by 49
“For discontented citizens who localise power outside the system – and such an orientation to politics is gaining ground (cf. Aupers, 2012; Harambam & Aupers, 2015; Harambam, 2017) – engaging in electoral political activity is either met with ambivalence or deemed nonsensical: parties do not appeal…”
BackgroundPoly-truth, or the limits of pluralism: Popular debates on conspiracy theories in a post-truth era
Harambam, J., Grusauskaite, K., & Wildt, L. D. (2022) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625221092145 · Cited by 48
Self-citationExpertise and Conspiracy Theories
Dentith, M. R. X. (2018) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2018.1440021 · Cited by 48
Ontologically dirty knots: The production of numbers after the Srebrenica genocide
Toom, V. (2020) · Security Dialogue · doi:10.1177/0967010620902008 · Cited by 45
“…of academic reasoning and extensive referencing, analyses by Herman and his allies resonate with modern social science, thereby adding a whiff of scientificality to their readings of the Bosnian War and the ‘events’ of July 1995 and thereafter (see Barkun, 2003; Harambam and Aupers, 2014).”
BackgroundFaking science: scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience
Zaboski, B. A., & Therriault, D. J. (2019) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646 · Cited by 47
“Thus, scientific illiteracy – coupled with distrust of the scientific elite and a repudiation of scientific dogmatism – provides an epistemic battlefield for scientists, conspiracy theorists, and pseudoscientists in modern culture (Boudry, Blancke, & Pigliucci, 2015; Harambam & Aupers, 2015).”
de Oliveira, T. M. (2020) · Fronteiras - estudos midiáticos · doi:10.4013/fem.2020.221.03 · Cited by 44
The History of Conspiracy Theory Research
Bütter, M., & Knight, P. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0002 · Cited by 47
Constructing Alternative Facts: Populist Expertise and the QAnon ConspiracyPreprint
Marwick, A. E., & Partin, W. C. (2022) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/ru4b8 · Cited by 40
Wicked problems and sociology: building a missing bridge through processual relationalism
Selg, P., Klasche, B., & Nõgisto, J. (2022) · International Review of Sociology · doi:10.1080/03906701.2022.2035909 · Cited by 44
“Of course, such ‘ conspiracy ’ based challenges to the epistemic authority of experts are not a new phenomenon (see Harambam & Aupers, 2015), but the widespread fear and uncertainty in the wake of the pandemic have created fertile ground for such theories to proliferate.”
BackgroundEmpowerment as a Tool to Reduce Belief in Conspiracy Theories
van Prooijen, J. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0030 · Cited by 37
Conspiracy Theories and Philosophy
Dentith, M. R. X. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0006 · Cited by 38
Reconfiguring health knowledges? Contemporary modes of self-care as ‘everyday fringe medicine’
Vuolanto, P. H., Bergroth, H., Nurmi, J., & Salmenniemi, S. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520934752 · Cited by 36
“Previous research on the public understanding of science pertaining to groups that are critical of the medical establishment has shown that in public discussions and academic circles alike, many forms of the lay appropriation of scientific claims still tend to be framed as public ‘misunderstandings’ (or ‘ignorance’) o…”
BackgroundBöcher, M., Zeigermann, U., Berker, L. E., & Jabra, D. (2022) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2022.2090537 · Cited by 36
“Pertaining to scientific evidence, populists, thus, employ ‘post-truth’ repertoires of contesting epistemic authorities and based on radical simplification, they produce forms of ‘counter knowledge’ appealing to experiential knowledge over expertise (Harambam and Aupers 2014, Ylä-Anttila 2018).”
BackgroundDiFonzo, N. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0017 · Cited by 34
Conspiracist cognition: chaos, convenience, and cause for concern
Lewandowsky, S. (2021) · Journal for Cultural Research · doi:10.1080/14797585.2021.1886423 · Cited by 32
“People in this milieu ‘argue that the ideal of objectivity is highly problematic: scientific “facts” are not so much “discovered” but “constructed” and this knowledge production is intimately related to political power and economic interests’ (Harambam & Aupers, 2015, p. 474).”
BackgroundEcological economics in the age of fear
Muradian, R. S., & Pascual, U. (2019) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106498 · Cited by 37
Drążkiewicz, E., & Harambam, J. (2021) · Journal for Cultural Research · doi:10.1080/14797585.2021.1886420 · Cited by 34
“The alternative theories presented by those believing in conspiracy theories thus compete with our carefully crafted explanations of reality (Harambam & Aupers, 2015; Latour, 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe impact of social desirability bias on conspiracy belief measurement across cultures
Smallpage, S., Enders, A., Drochon, H., & Uscinski, J. E. (2022) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2022.1 · Cited by 28
Conspiratorial Thinking and Dueling Fact Perceptions
Marietta, M., & Barker, D. C. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0014 · Cited by 32
Don't trust anybody: Conspiracy mentality and the detection of facial trustworthiness cues
Frenken, M., & Imhoff, R. (2022) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3955 · Cited by 33
In generative AI we trust: can chatbots effectively verify political information?
Kuznetsova, E., Makhortykh, M., Vziatysheva, V., Stolze, M., Baghumyan, A., & Urman, A. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-024-00338-8 · Cited by 32
“…one-dimensional conceptualizations can suffice when misinformation pertains to factually incorrect information, it is hardly applicable to more nuanced cases, for instance, the ones dealing with ontologically contested subjects, including some conspiracy theories (e.g. Harambam & Aupers, 2015).”
An inquiry into populism’s relation to science
Bellolio, C. (2022) · Politics · doi:10.1177/02633957221109541 · Cited by 35
“The moral objection is therefore compatible with the populists’ claim that they are the ones on the side of ‘real science’: they do not oppose science but only denounce conspiratorial scientists (Diethelm and McKee, 2009; Harambam and Aupers, 2015; Machin et al., 2017).”
Science to the people: A 32-nation survey
Makarovs, K., & Achterberg, P. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662517754047 · Cited by 30
Räikkä, J., & Basham, L. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0011 · Cited by 32
Zapp, M. (2022) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625221093897 · Cited by 30
Conspiracy Theories in Post-Soviet Russia
Yablokov, I. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0024 · Cited by 33
Polls, Plots, and Party Politics
Enders, A. M., & Smallpage, S. M. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0020 · Cited by 28
RPC-Lex: A dictionary to measure German right-wing populist conspiracy discourse online
Puschmann, C., Karakurt, H., Amlinger, C., Gess, N., & Nachtwey, O. (2022) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565221109440 · Cited by 28
“…the collective experience of consuming and producing/updating (i.e. ‘ prosuming ’ ) is elementary to the evolution, spread and success of conspiracy theories in an online environment (Aupers, 2012: 27; Harambam and Aupers, 2014: 471; Madisson and Ventsel, 2021: 32 – 33; Stano, 2020: 484 – 486).”
Dentith, M. R. X. (2023) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2023.2173539 · Cited by 28
“See, for example, Husting and Orr (2007) and Harambam and Aupers (2014).”
Background(2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0001 · Cited by 29
The Politics of Learning from Rare Events
Rerup, C., & Zbaracki, M. (2021) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2020.1424 · Cited by 28
The Collective Conspiracy Mentality in Poland
Soral, W., Cichocka, A. K., Bilewicz, M., & Marchlewska, M. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0025 · Cited by 30
Hameleers, M. (2022) · Politics and Governance · doi:10.17645/pag.v10i1.4726 · Cited by 25
de Oliveira, T. M., Wang, Z., & Xu, J. (2022) · Online Media and Global Communication · doi:10.1515/omgc-2022-0005 · Cited by 25
Populism and Science in Europe
Giorgi, A., & Eslen‐Ziya, H. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-97535-7_1 · Cited by 25
Knowledge, Counter-Knowledge, Pseudo-Science in Populism
Eslen-Ziya, H. (2022) · Populism and Science in Europe · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-97535-7_2 · Cited by 23
Making UFOs make sense: Ufology, science, and the history of their mutual mistrust
Eghigian, G. A. (2015) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662515617706 · Cited by 23
“These features, of course, are the antithesis of those commonly attributed to scientific practitioners, namely the ideal of scientists as objective, levelheaded, empirically grounded materialists (Harambam and Aupers, 2015).”
BackgroundHow Conspiracy Theories Spread
DeWitt, D., Atkinson, M., & Wegner, D. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0021 · Cited by 24
González, P. A. (2016) · Cultural Sociology · doi:10.1177/1749975516640569 · Cited by 22
“Given the growing mistrust in the authority of modern science among the population and the broader context of epistemological insecurity (Harambam and Aupers, 2014), my motivation for pursuing this research is to understand why and how archaeology is being disputed, and the political consequences…”
BackgroundDrążkiewicz, E. (2021) · Journal for Cultural Research · doi:10.1080/14797585.2021.1886422 · Cited by 22
“Similarly, Harambam and Aupers (2015) point out that since the history of science and the individual careers of scientists have been dedicated to separating facts from other claims on truth, they do not approach conspiracy theories from a neutral standpoint.”
BackgroundWhat We Mean When We Say “Conspiracy Theory”
Walker, J. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0003 · Cited by 23
Memes of Gandhi and Mercury in Anti-Vaccination Discourse
Buts, J. (2020) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v8i2.2852 · Cited by 26
Conspiracy Theories and Religion
Robertson, D. G. C., & Dyrendal, A. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0028 · Cited by 21
Mapping the Narrative Ecosystem of Conspiracy Theories in Online Anti-vaccination Discussions
Introne, J. E., Korsunska, A., Krsova, L., & Zhang, Z. (2020) · International Conference on Social Media and Society (SMSociety) · doi:10.1145/3400806.3400828 · Cited by 21
“Others have suggested that conspiracy theories might better be understood as a socio-political response to distant and elite power structures that control the media and scientific knowledge production [16, 27].”
BackgroundInsight in the Conspiracist’s Mind
de Cruys, S. V., Bervoets, J., Gadsby, S., Gijbels, D., & Poels, K. (2023) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/10888683231203145 · Cited by 22
“In interviews, these people often are careful not to claim that they have all the evidence to consider their deviating beliefs as the truth; they only claim the right to engage in their own truth-seeking activities (Carrion, 2018; Harambam & Aupers, 2015; Stewart, 1999).”
BackgroundThe sociodemographic correlates of conspiracism
Enders, A. M., Klofstad, C., Diekman, A. B., Drochon, H. H., de Waal, J. R., Littrell, S., Premaratne, K., Verdear, D., Wuchty, S., & Uscinski, J. E. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-64098-1 · Cited by 31
“…that–– at least sometimes ––beliefs in con-spiracy theories are sociologically, politically, or psychologically justified, in that historical (or even present) marginalization by social and political institutions may make conspiracy theories attractive explanations for various phenomena 81–83 .”
The battle for truth: How online newspaper commenters defend their censored expressions
Fangen, K., & Holter, C. R. (2019) · Poetics · doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2019.101423 · Cited by 21
“Similar to the conspiracy theorists studied by Harambam and Aupers (2017), our subjects have a self-understanding of being more able to take a critical stance than the majority of the population.”
ResultWood, M. J., & Douglas, K. M. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0016 · Cited by 22
Crabu, S., Picardi, I., & Turrini, V. (2022) · Science as Culture · doi:10.1080/09505431.2022.2138309 · Cited by 20
“In this regard, in line with a previous study on the way in which conspiracy theories dispute scientific authority (Harambam and Aupers, 2015), members of the communities scrutinized in this paper collectively engage in an effort not only to deconstruct institutional scientific claims and explanations but also to prod…”
ResultConspiracy believers claim to be free thinkers but (Under)Use advice like everyone else.
Altay, S., Nera, K., Ejaz, W., Schöpfer, C., & Tomas, F. (2023) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12655 · Cited by 13
Rejection of the status quo: Conspiracy theories and preference for alternative political systems
Papaioannou, K., Pantazi, M., & van Prooijen, J. (2024) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12754 · Cited by 18
Boullier, H., Kotras, B., & Siles, I. (2021) · RESET · doi:10.4000/reset.2698 · Cited by 17
Conspiratorial thinking and foreign policy views: evidence from Central Europe
Onderčo, M., & Stoeckel, F. (2020) · Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2020.1814309 · Cited by 17
“After transitioning out of socialism in 1989 and gaining independence in 1993, the country’s recent history has been marked by the attempts to enter Western-led international organizations, such as the EU and NATO.”
BackgroundInfluentialRömer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-22014-5 · Cited by 21
Desinformação sobre o Covid-19 no WhatsApp: a pandemia enquadrada como debate político
Soares, F. B., Recuero, R., Volcan, T. D. O., Fagundes, G., & Sodré, G. (2021) · CIÊNCIA DA INFORMAÇÃO EM REVISTA · doi:10.28998/cirev.2021v8n1e · Cited by 16
Understanding Conspiracy Online: Social Media and the Spread of Suspicious Thinking
Mortimer, K. (2017) · Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management · doi:10.5931/djim.v13i1.6928 · Cited by 16
“Conspiracy theorists “feel excluded, mocked, and stigmatized as “crazy” when they propose alternative ways of looking at the world” (Harambam & Aupers, 2015, pp. 474-475).”
BackgroundAtkinson, M., & DeWitt, D. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0008 · Cited by 17
Pohjonen, M. (2022) · Popular Communication · doi:10.1080/15405702.2022.2074998 · Cited by 15
McKenzie-McHarg, A. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0004 · Cited by 18
Uncertain Knowledge. Studying “Truth” and “Conspiracies” in the Digital Age
Boullier, H., Kotras, B., & Siles, I. (2021) · RESET · doi:10.4000/reset.2750 · Cited by 15
Media Marginalization of Racial Minorities
Orr, M., & Husting, G. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0005 · Cited by 16
On the Democratic Problem of Conspiracy Politics
Moore, A. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0007 · Cited by 14
Monari, A. C. P., & Sacramento, I. P. (2021) · Revista Mídia e Cotidiano · doi:10.22409/rmc.v15i3.50945 · Cited by 14
“Segundo Harambam & Aupers (2015), os adeptos das teorias da conspiração clamam pela necessidade de escolhas pessoais e para que haja uma discussão aberta com experts sobre os tópicos que desejam analisar ao invés de serem falados sobre o que fazer de forma autoritária.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Harambam, J., & Aupers, S.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-12-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 466-480
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- OpenAlex
- W2066753585
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 21.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Understanding of Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education, Healthcare and Sociology Research
- Keywords
- conspiracy theories, epistemic authority, boundary work, science and religion, lay knowledge, scientific expertise, power elite, knowledge contestation
- MeSH terms
- Culture, Delusions, Public Opinion, Science, Knowledge, Trust
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
