Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories are explanatory frameworks that assert that behind the apparent causes of socially or politically significant events lies a small, secretive group—or sometimes the political authorities themselves—acting according to a deliberate plan. These frameworks provide individuals with a sense of epistemic certainty and social belonging, centering intentional agency over chance, corporate complexity, or multicausality social processes. Conspiracy theories can range from isolated claims to monolithic belief systems and may spread rapidly through everyday discourse as well as via the algorithmic architectures and echo chambers of digital platforms.

Defining Characteristics

A common feature of conspiracy theories is their reliance on the assumption of a “hidden order.” An unseen coordination behind events is presumed; even when evidence is sparse or indirect, the narrative claims to connect fragmented clues into a coherent whole. In such narratives, institutional explanations are often deemed untrustworthy, official information sources are linked to cover-ups, and contradictory evidence is interpreted as proof reinforcing the conspiracy. Thus, the narrative can acquire resistance to falsification; criticisms are framed as part of “the system,” creating a closed loop of internal validation.

Conspiracy theories do not always produce the same type of content. Some construct large-scale historical claims, while others emerge as short-lived clusters of interpretations centered on current crises. In some cases, the conspiracy narrative merges with accusatory language targeting specific groups or institutions; in others, it progresses through a general atmosphere of suspicion and uncertainty emphasis. This diversity complicates reducing conspiracy theories to a single psychological tendency and necessitates examining them at the intersection of cognitive, social, and communicative processes.

Historical Background and Contemporary Social Context

The primary driver behind the proliferation of conspiracy theories in the modern era is not bureaucratic complexity but the information environment created by digitalization and internet technologies: the infodemic. Social media platforms have altered the mechanisms of knowledge production and control, enabling unverified information to circulate at unprecedented speed and scale. This environment can accelerate the search for explanations and make simplifying models—such as the “hidden plan”—appealing. Moreover, during periods of intensified political competition, social polarization's rising inequality, or deepening crises, conspiracy theories can function as tools for interpreting social tension and morally stigmatizing opponents.

The circulation of conspiracy theories in modern communication environments is shaped not only by political propaganda but also by the economic incentives of digital platforms, such as revenue generation through advertising and clickbait. The algorithmic structures of platforms, which reward engagement, encourage the rapid spread of emotionally charged content regardless of its truthfulness. Within this framework, conspiracy theories can be associated with functions such as influencing public opinion, generating distrust, sustaining emotions like anger and fear, or promoting specific political agenda agendas.

Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics

Attraction to conspiracy theories is often linked to conditions such as uncertainty, loss of control, and perceived threat. Under conditions of heightened uncertainty, individuals become more receptive to holistic explanations that assign meaning to events. At the cognitive level, this tendency can be explained by the activation of intuitive thinking (System 1) and cognitive laziness—the avoidance of mental effort—over analytical reasoning (System 2). Especially during crises, individuals tend to favor simple explanations that offer rapid emotional satisfaction rather than evaluating complex scientific data. This process reinforces pattern-seeking tendencies, facilitating the establishment of connections between unrelated events and the interpretation of coincidences as meaningful indicators.

Emotionally, conspiracy narratives can resonate with feelings beyond fear and anxiety, including anger, feelings of being belittled, and alienation. In some cases, the narrative reinforces an identity of the “minority who sees the truth,” fostering a sense of belonging and superiority. In other cases, persistent emphasis on threat and deception can nurture feelings of hopelessness and resignation, contributing to a cycle that weakens social trust relationships.

Social Functions and Sociological Approaches

Conspiracy theories should be understood not merely as individual beliefs but as narratives that gain meaning within social relations and power struggles. At the societal level, these narratives can sharpen the distinction between “us” and “them,” increase intergroup distrust, and their social identities foster more defensive postures. In some contexts, conspiracy theories emerge as attempts to explain and critique the existing order; in others, they transform into frameworks that delegitimize institutional solutions and legitimize lawlessness and violence.

Sociologically, conspiracy theories are interpreted as manifestations of the post-truth era, coinciding with the erosion of trust in scientific authority and expertise. Populist politics’ “elite antagonism” and the questioning of scientific objectivity create fertile ground for the social legitimacy of conspiracy theories. From this perspective, conspiracy theories are not merely a problem of misinformation but a broader social issue concerning trust, legitimacy, and authority.

Scientific Authority, Skepticism, and Information Regimes

Conspiracy theories are closely related to forms of social skepticism, but the nature of that skepticism is decisive. Scientific thought incorporates methodological doubt and evidence-based evaluation. In contrast, conspiracy theories sometimes generalize an unmethodical skepticism, relying on the prior assumption that “everything is hidden” and systematically devaluing expert knowledge. The problem here is not questioning per se, but the replacement of evidence, expertise, and verification processes with a habit of interpretation that merely expands doubt.

Tension with scientific authority becomes especially visible during crises marked by high uncertainty. Natural processes such as the updating of scientific knowledge, alongside internal challenges in science such as the “reproducibility crisis” and the “fake expert” strategies employed by disinformation actors, are instrumentalized by conspiracy theorists as evidence of “inconsistency” or “cover-up.” As a result, scientific authority may be framed not as an effort to approach truth but as a tool of vested interests. This framing can produce harmful outcomes in areas such as vaccine resistance or crisis management, collective action undermining institutional capacity.

Digital Ecosystem, Social Media, and Dissemination Mechanisms

Digital platforms create a new communication architecture for the production and circulation of conspiracy theories. Users’ tendency to seek out sources that reinforce their views (selective exposure/homophily), combined with platform algorithms’ personalized filtering mechanisms, generate “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles” in which individuals are isolated from opposing views and their existing beliefs are continuously reinforced. In such environments, exposure to dissenting opinions diminishes, selective exposure increases, and narratives are strengthened through group-internal validation mechanisms. Additionally, automated accounts, fake profiles, coordinated sharing, and attention-grabbing content formats can enhance the visibility of conspiracy narratives.

In social media environments, conspiracy theories are not merely treated as “false content” but also as products of the engagement economy. Content that is emotionally charged, emphasizes threat, and asserts certainty spreads more rapidly. This dynamic can make conspiracy narratives particularly effective during crises, as uncertainty and anxiety increase the appeal of explanations that offer quick answers.

Relationship with Infodemics and Information Disruptions

Conspiracy theories are situated within a broad information disorder ecosystem. Information disruption encompasses a framework that includes various forms of misinformation, their production and dissemination processes, and the actors involved. Within this framework, conspiracy theories occupy a space where intentional deception overlaps with unintentional sharing due to misunderstanding or information presented out of context. Under infodemic conditions, the excessive speed and volume of information flow complicate verification processes, making it easier for conspiracy narratives to carve out space within the “information chaos.”

In combating information disruptions, preventive communication approaches are as important as correction and refutation. Approaches grounded in the social psychological Inoculation Theory (Inoculation/Prebunking) aim to build “cognitive antibodies” by exposing individuals to weakened doses of misinformation or manipulation techniques in advance, thereby enhancing resistance to future disinformation attempts. Although the “continued influence effect” means that misinformation cannot be entirely erased, recent research shows that the “backfire effect” is rarer than commonly assumed and that debunking remains an effective and necessary strategy for reducing false beliefs. Therefore, conspiracy theories must be addressed not only through the truthfulness of individual claims but also through the communication environments and trust relationships that enable them.

Social Consequences and Risk Areas

Conspiracy theories are associated with outcomes such as social trust's weakening, erosion of institutional legitimacy, and polarization of public discourse. In some contexts, conspiracy narratives can target specific groups, fueling discrimination and hate speech. In others, they can be integrated into worldviews that encourage or justify political violence. Moreover, during periods of high sensitivity—such as health crises, disasters, or election cycles—the circulation of conspiracy theories can negatively affect public decision-making processes and social cohesion.

Individuals’ engagement with conspiracy narratives does not merely generate distrust; studies have observed that as discussion duration and comment volume increase, users’ emotional states become significantly more negative compared to those engaging with scientific content, and interactions within polarized communities (echo chambers) evolve toward increasingly negative emotional dynamics. This can spread suspicion across a wide spectrum—from interpersonal relationships to institutional trust—and weaken social bonds.

Research Approaches and Evaluation Frameworks

The study of conspiracy theories integrates psychology, sociology, communication activities, and computer-supported social sciences. Individual-level approaches may focus on uncertainty, perceived control, cognitive biases, and identity processes. Social approaches highlight inequality, representation crises, polarization, propaganda, and legitimacy debates. Digital analyses evaluate platform architectures that drive misinformation through four key components: “network structures” (privacy, groups) that connect users, “functionality” (social buttons, sharing) that shapes content production, “datafication” that measures user behavior, and “algorithms” that determine content visibility.

An important distinction in evaluation is that conspiracy narratives do not always serve the same function. Some may blend with legitimate criticism and demands for accountability regarding real issues; others systematically generate baseless accusations that poison the public sphere. Therefore, analytical frameworks aim to make finer distinctions based on standards of evidence, verification processes, and social harm criteria, without undermining critical inquiry.

Intervention and Resilience Perspectives

Approaches to mitigating risks associated with conspiracy theories are not limited to content removal or correcting individual falsehoods. Institutional transparency, consistent crisis communication, clear acknowledgment of uncertainty, and transparent explanation of how scientific knowledge evolves can strengthen trust relationships. Media literacy and critical thinking skills can enhance the capacity to evaluate the sources, evidence levels, and manipulation techniques behind claims. At the platform level, reducing algorithmic amplification of extreme polarization, detecting coordinated manipulation, and making verification infrastructure visible are key elements supporting structural resilience.