The inner worlds of conspiracy believers
Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests.
font_down font_up Text Size

Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.

“Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says.

His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence.

A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman.

Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

“Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says.

Swami’s finding that 9/11 conspiracy believers frequently spoke with likeminded individuals supports the notion that “conspiracy thinkers constitute a community of believers,” remarks historian Robert Goldberg of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Goldberg has studied various conspiracy theories in the United States.

Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.

Over the past 50 years, researchers and observers of social dynamics have traced beliefs in conspiracy theories to feelings of powerlessness, attempts to bolster self-esteem and diminished faith in government. Some conspiracy beliefs — such as the widespread conviction among blacks that the U.S. government concocted HIV/AIDS as a genocidal plot — gain strength from actual events, such as the once-secret Tuskegee experiments in which black men with syphilis were denied treatment.

Swami and his colleagues administered a battery of questionnaires to 257 British adults, including a condensed version of a standard personality test. Participants came from a variety of ethnic, religious and social backgrounds representative of the British population.

Most participants expressed either no support or weak support for 16 conspiracy beliefs about 9/11. These beliefs included: “The World Trade Center towers were brought down by a controlled demolition” and, “Individuals within the U.S. government knew of the impending attacks and purposely failed to act on that knowledge.”

Much as Swami’s team suspected, beliefs in 9/11 conspiracy theories were stronger among individuals whose personalities combined suspicion and antagonism toward others with intellectual curiosity and an active imagination.

A related, unpublished survey of more than 1,000 British adults found that 9/11 conspiracy believers not only often subscribed to a variety of well-known conspiracy theories, but also frequently agreed with an invented conspiracy. Christopher French of Goldsmiths, University of London, and Patrick Leman of Royal Holloway, University of London, both psychologists, asked volunteers about eight common conspiracy theories and one that researchers made up: “The government is using mobile phone technology to track everyone all the time.”

The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.

“It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.

Swami now plans to investigate attitudes of British volunteers to conspiracy theories about the July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in London.


Found in: Behavior and Humans
Comments 37
  • Where's the proof. This sort of conjecture, requires some sort of genetic proof.


    Gregory Blank Gregory Blank
    May. 22, 2009 at 11:10am
  • Perhaps the researchers should test these 40 U.S. Counterterrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans who also challenge the official account of 9/11.
    http://patriotsquestion911.com/Counterterrorism_Veterans.pdf
    Alan Miller Alan Miller
    May. 22, 2009 at 11:18am
  • www.wanttoknow.info
    Neve Neve
    May. 22, 2009 at 5:58pm
  • All other conspiracies aside, Afganistan is the key. The poppy has been around a long time,... ask Alexander.

    USA to legalize all narcotics and banned drugs tommorow and all evil doers vanish. They can't do it because too much money to much money to be made.






    Gregory Blank Gregory Blank
    May. 23, 2009 at 12:43am
  • All one needs to do is witness tower 7 to fall two or three times to realize it was a controlled demolition. Then I'm sure it was just a coincidence that planes hit the twin towers on the same day!
    richard Olson richard Olson
    May. 23, 2009 at 12:28pm
  • This isn't research. This is half-witted drivel. People were made to feel similarly crazy for 1,600 years of Catholic priest abuse, a VAST conspiracy of shuffling pervert priests around, covering up for them and making the young victims feel as if their accounts amounted to the vivid imagination of children. People who thought there was a church conspiracy were ridiculed shunned and made to feel like kooks by the same kind of moral cowards who you see today who are unable to face down difficult truths. Here we go again.
    Oak Ridge Oak Ridge
    May. 23, 2009 at 6:19pm
  • The vociferous comments sway me to the researcher's point of view. Many raised hackles and much hissing.
    js  banks js banks
    May. 23, 2009 at 9:03pm
  • If you really don't think the towers and WTC 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition, why don't you try to refute the overwhelming evidence using Science and Physics, rather then phycobabble articles.
    For example explain the near free fall speed of WTC 7, the eutectic steel found by FEMA, the nano-thermite found in the dust, the initial antenna drop of WTC 1 and much more that are overlooked by mainstream and cannot be explained with a gravity driven "collapse". The ONLY method of destruction that explains ALL evidence is a controlled demolition. Try using the scientific method and see if you can explain any other way that made the three towers "collapse". Do you really think the hundreds of professional engineers on ae911truth,org are all jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence? I think its just the opposite.
    Jonathan Cole Jonathan Cole
    May. 24, 2009 at 8:57am
  • The “Conspiracy” regarding 911 is one of silence by the authorities. There are way too many co-incidents, anomalies and contradictions to the official “story” to accept it at face value. Given that the US Government was forewarned months in advance by intelligence agencies from around the world – and the Moroccans even went so far a to tell us how, when and where the attacks would occur (as they had 2 moles inside Al Qaeda) - studies like this only add to the “smoke-and-mirrors” surrounding the events of 9-11-01.

    Had the author analyzed inconsistencies and false statements contained in the “911 Commission Report” and the NIST Report, we would be in a better position to evaluate just what exactly the Bush Administration knew about the impending attacks, when they learned it, and what response (or lack thereof) they took to keep America safe.

    This study by Bower, like the 911 Commission Report, was a complete waste of time!
    Richard Averett Richard Averett
    May. 24, 2009 at 10:01am
  • This is a most ridiculous article with no methodology whatsoever. It just spreads wistfully more confusion and is full of contradictions. People who are intelligent are always questionning things and rightly so. They DO NOT jump to conclusions. People who believe the mainstream stories do this.
    Viren Swami has not published yet! What kind of way is this? Mr.Ted Goertzel is completely distorted to the point of not being able to present his articles vertically.
    http://crab.rutgers.edu/%7Egoertzel/CapitalPunishmentHomicide.pdf
    This is typical disinformation and it probably works for 90% of the people reading it. Who is paying for this kind of flimsy studies is what I'd like to know! Conspirations are permanent tools of power. People lie more than they tell the truth. Cheating is the norm. And that is how you get the biggest depression in history. Enjoy!
    Jack Dupre Jack Dupre
    May. 24, 2009 at 11:21am
  • This is false: "The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence."

    Ask someone who believes in the official story if they believe the government's pancake theory for how the buildings collapse and they will say, "yes, I do." Then tell them, "well, actually, the government backed off of that theory because they realized it couldn't be true." And they will say, "oh, well, whatever, the new explanation is is fine. They wouldn't lie about such a thing." So, who is jumping to conclusions off of the least amount of evidence?

    Bin Laden's relatives were flown out of the country while all other air traffic was shut down after the attacks. Even the main stream media reports this to be the case. How come no Bin Ladens ended up being waterboarded in Guantanamo? They could be plucked from wherever they are living to this very day... how come they aren't?
    Oak Ridge Oak Ridge
    May. 24, 2009 at 11:59am
  • The individual that wrote this acts like there's no reason in the world to question what happened that day. As if we all decided to do this because we thought it would be a nifty hobby.

    http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=676

    Bruce Bower, take the time to read that entire article, and feel free to comment on it. I think it will do you some good.
    Jon Gold Jon Gold
    May. 24, 2009 at 6:58pm
  • While you are looking for conspiracies , just try finding the moon buggy on the Moon.
    just moon gazing
    Michael Staney Michael Staney
    May. 24, 2009 at 7:35pm
  • I find these comments extraordinary considering that this is the web site of Science News. It blows away my assumptions as to who the readers of Science News are.
    -----------------------------
    Regarding the comment of Richard Olson:
    No one alleged that 9/11 was an accident. It was a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of Bin Laden. The article addresses why some people prefer to think that their government had a conspiracy over the fact that an enemy had a conspiracy.
    Regarding the comment by Oak Ridge:
    One does not just pick up people and waterboard them based on their last name.



    Tina May Tina May
    May. 25, 2009 at 8:35am
  • Nice analysis,but I do not see any justification for the conclusion that conspiracy theories "help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world." If anything, a secretive and powerful government manipulating events would make me feel less in control than a lone gunman or a small group of foreign terrorists taking actions.

    I also think that an analysis of the type of events that provoke conspiracy theories would be useful. It seems to me that these events always contain a large amount of government secrecy, deception and outright lies. For example, the way the death count from the World Trade center attacks started high and then dropped as time went by. In any other disaster the count starts low and increases as more information comes out. Is it any wonder that this sort of behavior triggers an overreaction among some people? I am not even sure that I would classify their behavior as entirely inappropriate.
    Thomas Bradley Thomas Bradley
    May. 25, 2009 at 4:15pm
  • The comments here are a remarkable illustration of the findings. Cherry-picking of "evidence" out of piles of evidence to the contrary, trust in an "expert" who holds an extreme minority view, denial of empirical findings if (and only if) they disagree with preconceived beliefs, inordinate trust in the small handful of out-of-context eyewitness statements that stand in opposition to the vast mountain of witnesses who saw what really happened.

    Of course, some people have experienced more of this than others. The forums and websites which have seen these "debates" have seen more examples. If the comments here follow their example, expect a record number of comments on this article. Wear hip-boots.
    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
    Digital Cuttlefish Digital Cuttlefish
    May. 25, 2009 at 8:54pm
  • Now what would really be of interest is research into conspiracy deniers, don't you think? By the way, while virtually all MSM cling to the “Government investigations have concluded Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman.”
    You will easily find the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluding:“The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy". What percentage of "conspiracy theorists: are merely better informed?
    J Svj J Svj
    May. 26, 2009 at 2:50am
  • The world (human history and culture) is less interesting than most people want to believe….I’m fairly shocked at the tin foil around the head thinking displayed in most of these comments. Query everything but don’t do it out of a desire to find the answer that suits you.
    Alan Armstrong Alan Armstrong
    May. 26, 2009 at 8:21am
  • Arguments advanced by skeptics tell you more about the skeptic than about the phenomena...

    Skeptics share an optimistic conviction that they can find (know) “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change...

    EVERYONE surrounds themselves with "likeminded friends" (i think this is in part the definition of friendship!), including "skeptics"...
    undrgrndgirl undrgrndgirl
    May. 26, 2009 at 12:41pm
  • Speaking previously of research into conspiracy denial I was directed to this book, has anyone read it? Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture http://tinyurl.com/o4npqu
    J Svj J Svj
    May. 26, 2009 at 4:17pm
  • Ah yes, and the "conspiracy" about the illegal use of atmospheric aerosols for military and corporate/industrial purposes is something I thought up to help me control my world better?!? Of course, how silly of me..."they" wouldn't do any more with them since 1917, nawww...they wouldn't do thaaat. It's all in my head. http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm
    Lorie Kramer Lorie Kramer
    May. 26, 2009 at 6:53pm
  • Ah yes, and the "conspiracy" about the illegal use of atmospheric aerosols for military and corporate/industrial purposes is something I thought up to help me control my world better?!? Of course, how silly of me..."they" wouldn't do any more with them since 1917, nawww...they wouldn't do thaaat. It's all in my head. http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm
    Lorie Kramer Lorie Kramer
    May. 26, 2009 at 6:53pm
  • "A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman."

    Anyone who grew up seeing the replay in black and white over and over again would know one gunman killed JFK.

    It is just strange how his brains ended up on the trunk of the car and Oswald was up and behind...

    Science trumps lies.

    Some conspiracy theories carry more weight than others.

    Yes, folks who backed Hoover did try to turn over FDR.

    There are only a couple reasons to commit a conspiracy..
    power, greed.. perhaps a cover up?

    A conspiracy only takes two, so "grand conspiracies" are rather less likely than smaller conspiracies.

    As Oliver North knows, you don't want to have your secretary shred the evidence. It is important to build a circle if one was to commit a conspiracy.

    I find the implosion theories highly improbable when simply turing OFF the fire pumps and setting a large diversion, like a couple airplanes woud be just as effective.

    And instead of having a bunch of people of all levels involved, just ignoring a pending attack would do just as well too.

    So complex theories are silly, especially in this day and age when people communicate so quickly.

    Simple theories might have a bit more validity, if one follows the science and the human nature to go after money and power.

    Of course, those with money and power have the money to pay for studies too.
    Pessimistic Optimist Pessimistic Optimist
    May. 26, 2009 at 9:50pm
  • The above paper is the King's Truth - we must always trust the King's Truth!
    Proper Research would question: What are the characteristics of those who trust the King's truth dispite centuries of evidence that Kings lie. What are the characteristics of those who would trust a president even after the president kills a million people in a war based on lies?
    Which group is rational? Those who question authorities, or those who think Kings and presidents can do no wrong?
    Would you like to be someone with intellectual curiosity who asks questions and engages in hypothesis exploration and testing,
    Or would you rather be a religious cultist, with simplistic faith based thinking, blindly following authorities.
    john feinman john feinman
    May. 26, 2009 at 11:11pm
  • I am about to swallow my tongue I am laughing so hard. All I need now is for someone to say "chemtrail" and I'll actually pee myself. Great article!
    Thaddeus Thaddeus
    May. 27, 2009 at 3:35am
  • Viren Swami and his number one fan Bruce Bower should both reflect upon what a rather more noted psychologist had to say about social conformity:-

    "It is not a sign of a healthy mind to be well-adjusted to a sick society" - R.D.Laing
    Theon Lyreal Theon Lyreal
    May. 27, 2009 at 6:55pm
  • Hey can you do this much research into the actual events of 9/11 than the people that believe it Mr. Bower. There was just a news broadcast, not covered by American media of course, but thats just a conspiracy that they dont report on all news right, anyway, it was on dutch television how they found weapons grade thermite in the debri from the world trade center. Or how about the former translator, can think of her name right now but i wil find it and post it here, that has been silenced about her recording she translated which had moles in our governement from pakistan and israel knowing that the 9/11 attacks were going to happen. You dont seem like a dumb man Mr. Bowers but you sure are fucking blind....Peace
    Matt Reidinger Matt Reidinger
    May. 27, 2009 at 7:04pm
  • Thaddeus, you sound bitter, seek help. Another wobbly psycho story. http://tinyurl.com/qufeql
    J Svj J Svj
    May. 27, 2009 at 8:44pm
  • I agree with Alan Armstrong about questioning everything and not starting with an agenda that you build "facts" around. It is good to be skeptical, but consider all your sources. Do the sources have an agenda? Have they researched thoroughly or are they relying on anecdotal "evidence?" Of course, it is often difficult to get proof from governmental bodies, so conspiracy theories are going to proliferate. Still, be skeptical of everything before coming to a conclusion or opinion.
    pat blake pat blake
    May. 28, 2009 at 3:24am
  • Do psychologists have to be able to handle physics?

    Are the steel and concrete still conspiring to make sure we never know the tons of steel and concrete on every level? Can psychologists understand the conservation of momentum?

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.0

    The laws of physics don't give a damn about conspiracies. Explain that to the Swami.
    Karl Smithe Karl Smithe
    May. 29, 2009 at 1:38am
  • PROOF!! what do think sociopaths that do these kind of things do, leave a record or diary so they can let us know who did it?
    mike collett mike collett
    Jun. 8, 2009 at 4:03pm
  • Critical thinking: Where is it in the Bruce Bower article?

    Dolores Bentham
    Dolores Bentham Dolores Bentham
    Jun. 18, 2009 at 9:14pm
  • you should youtube bill cooper predicts 9/11----you should read behold, a pale horse. you should google georgia guidestones, bohemian grove, operation northwoods, operation ajax, operation cyclone....the list goes on forever.

    myspace.com/ny911truth facebook.com/mannyrevolution educating the masses.
    manny revolution manny revolution
    Jun. 21, 2009 at 3:28pm
  • After reading this article, an educated person with little knowledge of the inconsistencies in the official version of 9/11 would be given to regard any who question it as a 'group' of people separate from themselves--experimental subjects with a defined behavior set.

    This implied separation or division constructs barriers to inhibit open, rational discussion of the evidence. Instead these constructed barriers result in casting dispersions or falsely characterizing (as goofy, faith-based believers) those who question the official version (9/11).

    Conversely, bringing up other subjects of controversy (JFK or ETs) serves to distract from what is the most essential evidence in the case of 9/11,

    for example,

    "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

    http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess-2.htm

    or the massive quantities of melted steel at ground zero reported by many numerous, reputable witnesses--however, we can just say they were kooky too, right?

    To attack the character of the person, without sufficiently addressing the evidence, is known as Ad Hominem argument and is an invalid debate tactic.

    So together let's examine evidence by the scientific method without insulting, ridiculing, mocking, condescending, or patronizing each other:

    Observation--large quantities of melted steel, collapse near free-fall speed, and steel melting before collapse to name only a few observations
    Hypothesis--observations indicate controlled demolition
    Experimentation--chemical analysis of steel and dust samples
    Conclusions--evidence supports controlled demolition hypothesis, therefore pancake collapse is not likely

    This is an example of a reason-based thought process.

    My question is why does Science News choose to publish this article? As a subscriber of several years I find it totally out of place with the magazine's mission. In a single stroke they have attempted to wave away a well-supported line of evidence by characterizing a group as a whole to represent individuals. 9/11 is arguably the most important historical event of the last several decades and deserves better than this obvious, lazy bias masquerading as important cutting edge science. Why not publish a balanced story covering the aforementioned article, also? I would be impressed! As it stands I will not be renewing my subscription.

    Peace
    j e j e
    Jun. 29, 2009 at 7:37pm
  • The article in a recent issue of Science News on the personality disorders of "conspiracy theorists" is so base and juvenile it is hard to choose an entry point to begin ripping it apart. Articles like these are usually fed to various media outlets, by Pentagon agencies that have billion dollar budgets (as reported in mainstream news) to diffuse the vast amount of credibility that some movements have gained via the enormous volume of evidence gathered and disseminated by activists and researchers. The term "conspiracy theorists" itself has no meaning but serves as a convenient way of dismissing evidence or theories that are counter to the prevailing "conspiracy theory" that has been created by the conspirators. Yes, there are all kinds of people who are drawn to theories other than those disseminated by governments and the media. One such example, Mentioned in the article, is, the 9/11 "truth" movement. It would have been much more informative for Science News to have published the 40 page article by Professor Stephen Jones, of Brigham University that details the physics of the implosion of WTC 7 indicating that it could not have fallen the way it did without having been the result of a controlled demolition. Dr. Jones has been published by the magazine, Scientific American. He is hardly a misanthropic thrill seeker as the article in Science News implies. I myself approached an editor at Science News a couple of years ago about publishing something about the discrepancies that exist within the official 9/11 report. Is it psychologically deranged to wonder why the official 9/11 report failed to mention, even once, the implosion of WTC 7, the third and little known building that fell? Is is psychologically deranged to wonder why CNN and the BBC reported the collapse of the same building 20 minutes before it happened? One only has to possess a shred of critical thinking to wonder about those events yet Science News, which should be promoting science and critical thinking seeks to corner those who seek and question into a psychological diagnosis.' Within the same movement are hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed on to the website "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". There is also, "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" and over a hundred military brass, ex-intelligence operatives, political leaders, government employees and people from all walks of life who don't fit the psychological profile that Science News would have us believe that wonder what really happened. To be fair Science News should share the website: www.911truth.org so that readers and thinkers can make up their own minds.

    Thoughtfully,
    DM http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com
    david morrison david morrison
    Jul. 1, 2009 at 4:07pm
  • I don't believe in all those 9/11 con-theories but I do belive in "The Revenge of Sith Soros" con-theory. What is "The Revenge of Sith Soros" con-theory. In 1944 the Nazi's took over Hungary and George Soros was forced to escape to England. Latter on in 1956 George Soros thought he might be able to return to Hungary when it revolted against the evil Empire known as the Soviet Union. He expected the United States to help his beloved birth place out, but they did nothing. That is when George Soros turned to the dark side and became one of the most powerful Sith Lords ever to exist. Sith Lord Soros vowed revenge. He moved to NY city in 1956 and began devising his plan. Finally the moment was right. His plan is simple, to turn the United States into the very thing it dispises, communism. He is going to do to the USA what the Soviets did to his beloved Hungary. So to all you true blue red blooded Americans grab your muskets and fight back. We must stop the evil Sith Lord Soros and his somewhat dimwitted can't speak without a teleprompter, Darth Obama. AmericanSDL.com
    Jeff Slough Jeff Slough
    Jul. 2, 2009 at 8:05pm
  • I am not amazed or impressed by the lengths of BS the Government (s) will pay scientists or researchers to say a load of BS like this. We ALL know, or at least most of us with common sense, know that BUSH was behind the 9/11 plot! He DID know about it and yet did nothing about it so that he could make BS claims to go to war to look for "weapons of mass destruction" that were, NEVER FOUND! AND hey.... there IS a TON of BS that our entire World is holding secret from all of us! Just wake up! I am not a conspiracy theorist, never have, never will be, I just SEE what is real through the BS lines of crud they (the governments) pile upon us. No one should live in fear, ever, because there is nothing to fear! So, these researchers and scientists need to be tested and researched themselves and let us be the ones that do the testing with LOGIC and REASON!
    urcreational urcreational
    Jul. 29, 2009 at 2:28pm
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Suggested Reading:
seperator
  • Goldberg, R. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. Yale University Press:New Haven, CT.
Citations & References:
seperator
  • Swami, V., et al. In press. Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1001/acp.1583
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator