Conspiracy files: The role of uncertainty and deliberation in conspiracy belief

Abstract

Conspiracy theories have detrimental social consequences. They are alternative explanations entailing secret actions made by groups perceived as powerful and malevolent. Conspiracy beliefs are encouraged by existential threats, such as uncertainty, which drive individuals to rationalise their surroundings. According to uncertainty reduction theory, people attempt to reduce uncertainty and information-seeking behaviours are a vehicle to do so. Since conspiracies may help address human needs, conspiracy beliefs are alluring strategies for reducing uncertainty. In parallel, dual-process theories posit that individuals reason using intuition and deliberation. While intuition is autonomous, deliberation involves cognitive resources and has been associated with decreased conspiracy beliefs - although its role is rather complex. Hence, an experimental study was designed to decipher the role of uncertainty and deliberation in fostering conspiracy beliefs. Participants (N = 180) judged distinct explanations' accuracy (Moderate vs. Conspiratorial) under different conditions of salience of uncertainty (High salience vs. Control) and reasoning (Intuition vs. Deliberation) which employed the Two-response paradigm. It was expected that increased perceived uncertainty would promote conspiracy beliefs and that deliberation would decrease them - particularly when uncertainty was not salient. Although salience of uncertainty was successfully manipulated, no effect of it influencing conspiracy beliefs was found. Additionally, results suggest that deliberation promoted conspiracy beliefs, albeit this effect may be explained by carryover (i.e., anchoring) effects. Further evidence revealed that deliberation (vs. intuition) performed no differential role in impacting conspiracy beliefs. These findings are discussed in light of uncertainty reduction theory and dual-process approaches.