Recent research from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has shed new light on the reputational consequences of spreading conspiracy theories, particularly in the context of intergroup conflicts. The study explores how individuals who propagate conspiracy theories are perceived in terms of dominance, competence, and warmth, with findings suggesting that such behaviour can enhance one’s status in certain social settings, especially during periods of intergroup tension.
The study, published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, delves into the paradoxical nature of conspiracy theories – while these theories are often associated with gullibility and social rejection, they can also serve as strategic tools to boost popularity, especially during times of conflict. This research is grounded in the Adaptive Conspiracism Hypothesis (ACH), which posits that conspiracy thinking has evolved as an adaptive response to ancestral conflicts between groups. Historically, recognising potential threats from hostile coalitions could have been crucial for group survival, and this vigilance might have translated into increased social status for those who identified or warned of conspiracies.
The research team conducted five studies to investigate the reputational effects of spreading conspiracy theories across different contexts. Participants were asked to evaluate individuals who spread conspiracy theories versus those who made neutral claims, with a particular focus on how these evaluations changed depending on whether the participants were in a conflict or cooperation scenario.
The findings were striking. Across all studies, conspiracy spreaders were consistently perceived as more dominant than those making neutral statements. This increased perception of dominance did not vary significantly with the context, suggesting that spreading conspiracy theories is a stable strategy for those looking to assert power and influence within a group. This aligns with previous research indicating a link between conspiracy beliefs and traits associated with dominance, such as Machiavellianism.
But the story becomes more nuanced when considering other traits like competence and warmth. In peaceful or cooperative contexts, conspiracy spreaders were viewed as less competent and less warm compared to neutral individuals. This negative perception likely stems from the fact that, in such settings, conspiracy theories can disrupt potential cooperation and trust among groups, making the spreader appear as a divisive and unreliable figure.
Interestingly, the negative impact on perceived competence and warmth was significantly attenuated in conflict scenarios. During times of intergroup tension, individuals who spread conspiracy theories were seen as more competent and warmer than they were in cooperative settings, though still not more than their neutral counterparts. This suggests that in the heat of conflict, the ability to detect and warn of potential threats—even if those threats are speculative—can be seen as a valuable trait, contributing to the group’s survival.
The implications of these findings are far-reaching. They suggest that while spreading conspiracy theories can carry significant social costs, particularly in peaceful settings, it can also offer reputational benefits in the right context. This duality may explain why conspiracy theories are often more prevalent and more readily believed in societies experiencing high levels of conflict or division.
The research also highlights a critical trade-off faced by those who engage in spreading conspiracy theories: they may gain in dominance and perceived leadership qualities but at the cost of being seen as less warm and trustworthy, especially outside of conflict situations. This dynamic could have significant implications for political and social leaders who rely on conspiracy theories as part of their strategy to rally support.
The study also opens up new avenues for future research. The authors suggest that further exploration into individual differences, such as personality traits like paranoia or general mistrust, could provide deeper insights into why certain individuals are more likely to spread or believe in conspiracy theories. Additionally, behavioural studies could examine whether the reputational benefits observed in these experimental settings translate into real-world rewards for conspiracy spreaders.
