Category: Conspiracy Theory

Introduction

My group and I chose this conspiracy theory because it is both interesting and fun. The thought that the CIA killed off the birds in a mass geonosis and replaced them with robotic birds to spy on us is very intriguing. I have always heard my friends joke around about how birds are government spies. After joking, I noticed that usually there are large numbers of birds almost everywhere and anywhere, yet sometimes those same birds just disappear without a trace and for unknown reasons. I began to see why people might believe in the conspiracy theory, so I am glad to have the opportunity to research the history of this conspiracy theory and better understand conspiracy theories as a whole. In general, there have been so many different theories regarding the government spying on the public. This particular theory appears to be an extension of the conspiracy theory process, yet made more sinister by adding more depth and detail to the levels the government would stoop to acquire illegal information. This is all very plausible because Corera (2019), Sullivan (2017), and Vanderbilt (2013) provide evidence in each of their articles that the CIA used not only birds but various animals to spy on the “enemy” at hand.

Methodology and Bibliography

When I was doing research to find evidence and support for this theory I mainly looked on google for websites and/or community groups that supported the idea that birds aren’t real and they are actually spies that the CIA/government uses to spy on us. I was able to find an official website for the Birds Aren’t real movement as well as a reddit thread that is run by a community of people that believe in the conspiracy theory. I also looked at news sources to find support/evidence for the theory. These sources, and other supporting websites that I found, were created by supporters of the theory as well as Vanderbilt (2013) who interviewed a former trainer who reveals operations made by the U.S. government that used animals. Some of the sources that I used do provide scientific claims and evidence while others provide anecdotes and non-scientific evidence. In Corera’s (2019) article, he presents evidence of when the CIA would use pigeons and dolphins as spies.

Logical and Cognitive Processes

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are an error in reasoning that, most of the time, undermines the logic of one’s argument. Some examples of logical fallacies within this theory could be: appeal to emotion, circular reasoning, and false dichotomy. Appeal to emotion is used within this conspiracy when the topic of people’s safety comes up. It is frightening to think that the government is spying on the people, gaining personal information on them, and what they might do with the information. Circular reasoning is presented when the argument “pigeons work for the CIA because the CIA distributed them to spy on us” is made. False dichotomy – We do not see pigeons during the night because they fly back to the CIA to recharge.

System 1 and System 2

System 1 processing is where the fast and automatic responses happen (e.g., gut instincts), whereas system 2 is more deliberate, concentrated and slower thinking. System 1 is said to be more accurate when we have more data and reliable feedback about a certain subject (“Dual Process Theory,” 2019). System 2 is better for making decisions where we do not have experience (“Dual Process Theory,” 2019). So, system 1 processing would make it easy for someone who believes that birds aren’t real to stay in that belief because it is easier to remain in system 1 and if their gut instinct told them that birds are really government spies, then they are more likely to trust their gut and stick with it. An example of this would be, someone sees a bird outside of their window, that they believe is staring at them, and they grow suspicious. The bird then flies away, following that, the person then gets an email that their bank account has been broken into. The person’s gut instinct is to believe that the bird was gathering information on them and that they were being spied on. System 2 would explain why people would believe in this theory because if they aren’t well equipped in their knowledge about statistics, logic, or numbers then they are more likely to be persuaded to believe that birds are in fact not real. Someone may be more focused on the coincidences that occur, which leads them to the conclusion that birds are spies. If someone is spending the majority of their time on blogs that support their belief about birds, they are only confirming their beliefs which causes them to only hold on to their belief even tighter.

Worldview

A worldview can be considered to be someone’s philosophy of life (i.e., their conception of the world). There are four major dimensions that contribute to one’s worldview: existential, evaluative, prescriptive, and proscriptive.

Existential. An existential belief is one that can be considered true or false. The CIA killed and replaced birds with robots and are using pigeons as government spies.

Evaluative. An evaluative belief is where the object of the belief is viewed either in a positive or negative way. The government is evil and is trying to obtain total control over its people.

Prescriptive. These are the things you should do. A supporter of this conspiracy theory might believe that we should stay away from open areas where there will be a lot of birds. Also, we should only trust no one, but ourselves.

Proscriptive. These are the things you shouldn’t do. We should not trust the government because the government is violating our rights.

Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias

The tension or strain that someone experiences when their worldview or belief has been contradicted or challenged is cognitive dissonance. A supporter of this theory would experience this when they are presented with evidence proving that birds are not robots (e.g., an autopsy of a bird showing that it has organs and not robot parts). Confirmation bias is when we select certain information and interpret said information to confirm our existing beliefs or theories. How would they use confirmation bias to reduce cognitive dissonance? Let’s say someone is at the park and they notice a group of birds. However, one bird strays away from the group and happens to be closer to said person. This person will use their confirmation bias to counter the bird’s normal behavior (cognitive dissonance) by believing that the bird is actually following them and spying on them.

Fear and Vulnerability

The role of fear within this theory is that the government has killed all the birds and replaced them with spies. These robot birds are used to gather tons of information on each individual and are always watching our every move. The supporters of this theory fear that the government is going to use all the information gathered for evil. Supposedly, the CIA assassinated JFK because he refused to kill and replace billions of birds with drones (Alfonso, 2018). What if the rest of America is next? The American people are at threat along with any other countries that the CIA chooses to spy on. The government is everywhere now and our rights have been violated. The general population is vulnerable because birds are everywhere and we cannot control the government and their actions. Who knows what they are planning to do to us.

The Power of Stories

I came across a couple articles that were based off of stories about how the CIA used birds to spy on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In Vanderbilt’s (2013) article, it provides information from a former trainer who reveals that the U.S. government used ravens, pigeons, and even cats to spy on Cold War adversaries. The theory that birds are actually government spies seems to be based off of when the CIA would use pigeons to detect the presence of an enemy during a war (Staff, 2013). In an NPR interview, it was mentioned that animals were used as spies because they could do things that humans simply could not. The CIA referred to their pigeon program as the Squab Squad (Staff, 2013). Corera (2019) referred to it as “a superpower” because pigeons could be dropped somewhere that they have never been before, yet they would be able to find their way back home. Also, Slavey (2019) provided a story about how when the government shut down a few years ago that the skies became quiet and there were no birds to be seen. Stories have a certain way of drawing people in and can persuade listeners to believe what they are being told, even if it is false.

The CRAAP Test

While researching this theory, I was able to find sources that ranged from the early 2000s to the present. There are many people who are still creating new stories and finding new evidence to support the theory. All the available information on the conspiracy is relevant to those who support it, aim to expose the government, and seek to find the truth. There are still many active supporters who continue to build the theory based on information that they can find. All the information provided on this theory is relevant to basically all of America because it is believed that our rights as American citizens are being violated. The people deserve to know. While there is no leading figure who endorses this conspiracy, it appears to be more of a grassroots movement. The official “Birds Aren’t Real” movement and website was created by Peter McIndoe, a 20-year-old college student (Alfonso, 2018). McIndoe has expanded this movement all across social media and he even sells merchandise associated with the movement. Depending on who you ask, the information is either accurate or inaccurate. There is a lot of information based on facts, the history of the CIA, and strategies used during the Cold War and World War I. The purpose of this theory is to help people become more aware of what the government is doing behind closed doors. It seems like the supporters and/or creators of this conspiracy want to protect the safety of the citizens as well as their rights as well as providing explanations for government operations.

Personal Reflection

It was fun developing and working off of an existing conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists are always looked down upon and are made fun of, so it was nice being able to be one for a little while without all of the harsh criticisms. It was relatively easy finding information to support the theory. However, I was surprised at how many people truly believe that the government had killed off all of the birds and replaced them with robot spies. The only difficulty that I experienced in my research was trying to find “authority figures” within this theory. It was hard to understand who was “in charge” of it all. Once I was so immersed within my conspiracy theory, it started to get to me and for a second there I almost believed it. From this point on I am going to be on the lookout for the birds and see if I can find any strange or suspicious behavior going on.

Introduction

Small kids always get so excited when they see the trails of clouds left behind by airplanes. They normally call other kids to watch and admire the white path left by these streaks. Chemtrail is a controversial topic in the sense that while some people find the patterns made by the streaks as beautiful and harmless, others are concerned that they aggravate global warming. As a result, people have come up with various theories to explain chemtrails and their dangers. This paper explores the basis of conspiracy theories and their arguments. It also uses scientific theory to explain how a contrail comes about. While some people argue that the government is spraying the atmosphere with dangerous chemicals, others hold that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim

Scientific explanation

Although contrails are thought to be dangerous, there is a scientific explanation behind the trails. When jets are flying in the air, their engines expend very hot air as well as water vapor as byproducts. Since the air is very cold in the high altitude where the jets fly, the process of condensation occurs when the humid hot air hits the cold air in the atmosphere (Freeland 89). Moreover, the process of condensation is facilitated by the low pressure in the surrounding areas. When the vapor that is emitted by the hot engine meets the cold air, it condenses into water droplets that form a mist that are seen as contrails, short form for condensation trails. This trail keeps on disappearing as the water vaporizes.

Although this explanation makes sense and seems unharmful, a deeper exploration and what is emitted by the engine shows that it is not only hot air and vapor that is emitted but also other poisonous gases. It is common knowledge that human activities that lead to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere involve the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas to generate energy. Similarly, jet uses fossil fuel for energy and this raises concern especially due to the altitude within which these gases are emitted. As Royce explains, oxides of nitrogen are generated since the water vapor contains high temperature leading to dissociation of oxygen and nitrogen in the air (66). Nitrogen oxides are harmful and they have been cited as one of the leading causes of global warming and climatic change.

Additionally, the combustion of jet engines leads to the emission of carbon dioxide which has been attributed to global warming. Therefore, this explanation shows that the contrails may not be harmless after all. Global warming has a hoard of harmful effects on people, animals, and environments that include changes in the patterns of the rain, acid rain, decrease in vegetation, flooding, droughts and many others. Global warming has been at the center of focus in the 21st century since people are concerned about its impact on the present and in the future. This, therefore, explains why some people are paying attention to chemtrails.

In addition to these scientific explanations, people have come up with various theories to explain chemtrails. Some of these theories have not been backed up by any scientific evidence and therefore they remain as speculations.

Chemical conspiracy theory

Although the government has continued to insist that contrails are a result of condensation and they are harmless, some people are concerned that trails are now thicker and larger as opposed to how they used to be. According to conspiracy theorists, the government has been putting harmful products to the trails to create chemtrails. Some extremists believe that the government has a secret program to pollute the air using harmful chemicals (Fee and Webb 186). Conspiracy theorists hold on to events such as droughts, extreme weather conditions, forest fires, neuronal disorders such as autism and Alzheimer’s, to justify their theories. However, there is no direct correlation between contrails and the effects mentioned by the proponents of conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theorists differentiate contrails and chemtrails. As free and Webb explains, conspiracy theorists believe that contrails are formed when aircraft at high altitudes release water vapor in the upper troposphere such that the air becomes saturated (186). These trails are visible and they range from seconds to a few hours. Chemtrails, on the other hand, are thicker and they last longer than the contrails. Therefore, conspiracy theorists believe that those thick trails left by aircraft are dangerous since they contain harmful chemicals.

These conspiracy ideas started emerging in the 1990s when some citizens of the United States started growing suspicious of the government. Publications began to be produced regarding the chemtrails and some of the notable publications include Mystery Contrails May Be Modifying Weather Chemtrails confirmed, and Mystery lines in the Sky. The movement continued to gain popularity in the 2000s and its supporters continued to produce books and videos mostly through the internet.

Although the believers of the conspiracy theory have different explanations towards the chemtrails, they share common ground. For example, they all believe that the government is intentionally spraying a substantial amount of chemicals in the atmosphere using jets. However, the claims diverge where people convey different opinions as to why the government would engage in the act of poisoning the air. Some claim that chemtrails are unintentional by-products of geoengineering. They further claim that these ineffective geoengineering practices are concealed by the scientists and the government to prevent the public from finding out.

Yet others argue that chemtrail is intentional but the resulting effects are not intentional. There is also another group that claims that chemtrails are profiteering efforts of large oil companies or agricultural companies and even perhaps part of population controls. Still, others posit that the government may be experimenting with weather manipulation to defend itself against the enemy. This is not an isolated case since the British once seeded the clouds with salt, silver iodide and dry ice to make rain. This shows that weather manipulation may be possible.

However, these claims have something in common: they lack substantial evidence. They fail to put up a detailed and more concrete explanation for the chemtrail phenomenon. On the contrary, they counter scientific explanation with vague allegations and conjecture (Free and Webb 186). Moreover, the evidence used to justify this phenomenon has very wide variations making it even harder for anyone who follows facts and even logic to agree.

Reputable scientists have dismissed conspiracy theories arguing that such experiments have no real use. For example, Baskin explains how some scientists have come up with research papers that show that chemtrails do not exist (148). Scientists claim that they have not found credible evidence that links the thick trails with dangerous chemicals. Moreover, such claims are heavy and serious and scientists claim that there is no plausible reason why the government would be endangering the lives of its citizens considering that its families live in the same world. There is no evidence that shows what could motivate the government to spray dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere to cause diseases and climatic changes. Some also claim that the government cannot intentionally cause harm to its own citizens. Moreover, if such issues exist that put people live in danger scientists would not hesitate to investigate and find the truth.

However, as seen at the beginning of the paper, it was seen that coal-based jets produce carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Therefore, the issue of contrails and global warming is not an isolated case. The byproducts of the engine when the fuel combusts releasing gases that may be responsible for global warming. Nonetheless, this does not support the conspiracy theory. However, this shows that the jet byproducts are unintentionally contributing to global warming. This however differs from the conspiracy theory that claims that the pollution is intended.

Therefore, while the conspiracy theorists claim that chemtrail exist where the government has been spraying dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere, scientists claim that chemtrails do not exist. Scientific evidence shows that contrails are formed through condensation when hot humid air from the jet engine is released to the cold temperatures at high altitudes. However, conspiracy theorists put across an argument that the government is engaged in a plan to poison the atmosphere by spraying dangerous chemicals. Although these claims have not been confirmed they still remain a hot topic of discussion.

Works Cited

1. Baskin, Jeremy. Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the End of Nature. Springer, 2019.
2. Fee, Christopher R., and Jeffrey B. Webb. Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories in American History [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO, 2019.
3. Freeland, Elana. Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth. Feral House, 2014.
4. Royce, Rolls. The Jet Engine. John Wiley & Sons, 2015

Inside the assassination of President Kennedy

November 22, 1963. President Kennedy was in Dallas Texas visiting for a campaign when things took a turn for the worst. While driving down the street just passed the School Book Depository, crowds and crowds of people stood along the street as shots began to fire, bang, bang, bang! Was it one? Two? Three? President Kennedy was shot twice and later pronounced dead at the nearby hospital. The first doctor that was treating president Kennedy wrote down that there was a wound in the neck while another wound was located on his head. “A small bullet wound in the front lower neck, and an extensive wound in the President’s head where a sizable portion of the skull was missing”(DeHaven-Smith,52). Early on in the investigation, things started to get suspicious. Which led to Lance DeHaven- Smith writing a book just about how this event was flawed.

In the book, “Conspiracy Theory in America” written by Lance DeHaven-Smith he describes how he introduced the term, “SCAD” (State Crime against Democracy) as a way to describe the type of wrongdoing which the term “conspiracy theory” discourages us from speaking. The term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative putdown, a way to silence and marginalize anyone who dares contest the party line on shocking political crimes. The discussion turns from the potential malfeasance to the intelligence and sanity of the person putting forward the conspiracy theory. The SCAD construct, on the other hand, focuses on actions that are done potentially to subvert our representative democracy, typically from the inside. But what some failed to see or kept silent about was Kennedy’s killer.

His purported assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was quickly arrested and then, while being transferred from the city jail to the county jail, was himself killed by Jack Ruby, a local Dallas nightclub owner. The assassination was investigated by the Warren Commission which concluded that Oswald killed President Kennedy while acting alone and that Jack Ruby was unrelated to the assassination and also acted alone. Though multiple bodies have come to the same conclusion, multiple circumstances about the assassination raise suspicions and several documents lend evidence to the possibility that the assassination was a SCAD. See there were many different key components that were kept from the public eye. This could not have just been planned and acted out by one person.

The Warren Commission determined that Oswald, acting alone, fired all of the shot that struck the President and that he fired from behind and above the President. The President sustained ahead, back and throat wound. Crucial to the single shooter theory would be that all the President’s wounds would be consistent with an attack from the back. If the wounds were consistent with shots fired from multiple directions then Oswald would not have acted alone. See there were many different key components that were kept from the public eye. This could not have just been planned and acted out by one person.

Arlen Specter took the testimony of multiple staff members of the Parkland Hospital where Kennedy had been taken for medical care and part of his inquiry involved the throat wound on the front of the President’s neck. A nurse Margaret Henchcliff described the wound as a small round wound that looked like an the entry wound”. Next General Surgeon Ronald Jones stated that the throat wound was “small and clean-cut” as one would expect from an entrance wound. Another doctor named General Surgeon Robert McClelland indicated that his impression of the throat wound was that it was an “entrance” wound and not an exit wound. Dr. Paul Peters indicated that he presumed the throat wound was an entrance wound upon his examination. If these experts are correct in their assessment that the throat wound was an entry wound and not an exit would then the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was a disgruntled loner who managed to kill the President falls apart and there arises a conspiracy of at least two people – Oswald and at least one unidentified shooter from the front and would demand further investigation.

In 1963 the CIA sent a cable describing a Lee Henry (sic) Harvey Oswald entering the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. They believed this was the Lee Oswald who was a U.S. Marine deserter who had defected to the Soviet Union and then returned with a Russian wife, as did President Kennedy’s assassin. They went on, however, to describe the subject as 35 years old and of athletic build. In reality, Lee Harvey Oswald was 23 years old and slender. That someone identifying themselves as Lee Harvey Oswald would raise the specter that there was an association there centering on the Soviet Embassy. Again this argues against the single shooter action alone to assassinate the President.

The Warren Commission determined that 3 shots were fired at the President by Oswald. Arlen Specter took the testimony of a witness, Jean Lollis Hill. He asked her how many shots she heard. She testified that there 3 distinct shots and then, after a pause she heard more shots. She said, “I think there were at least four or five shots and perhaps six, but I know there were more than three.” This is a direct witness testimony that contradicts the findings of an official body. An assistant counsel of the President’s Commission, Mr. Samuel Stern, took the testimony of a direct witness S. M. Holland. He indicated that he heard shots coming from under the trees on the grassy knoll and saw a puff of “smoke” accompanying the shots, more direct witness evidence that there were more than 3 shots with the shots coming from different directions. Mr. Carr testified in a trial in Louisiana that he heard at “least three shots” coming from the grassy knoll and they occurred in rapid-fire sequence. Again, this is more direct witness testimony indicating that there were at least 2 shooters in different locations. In the excerpt from page 54, Dr. Charles Carrico noted a small bullet wound in the “front lower neck” adding credence to the theory that this was an entry wound [coming from the front] and inconsistent with the Warren Commission final conclusion that this was an exit wound from a shot to the back. There is just so much missed or should I say avoided information leading to the death of the president. So in this collection of documents we have evidence that argues against the single lone shooter theory of President Kennedy’s assassination. Great effort has been made to explain or excuse this contradictory evidence that itself raises the specter of SCAD.

Abstract

People have a natural desire to find explanations of the world around them. In some cases this includes the adoption of conspiracy theories. However, there is still significant doubt surrounding the features of a conspiracy theory, or the personal characteristics of the individual believer that make the conspiracy theory itself more or less persuasive. The following study will seek to gain a further understanding of conspiracy theories and why people invest differently in different conspiracy theories, and why they find them persuasive overall.

The Compelling Nature of Conspiracy Theories and Why People are Persuaded to Believe Them

Conspiracy theories are a unique form of social and political response, which is used to explain a given event or set of events (Douglas et al., 2019). The word conspiracy is derived from the Latin word conspire, meaning “to breath together” and is commonly used to refer to people working together to a reach a specific goal (Byford, 2010). However, conspiracy theories, in psychology and political science refer to either evidence or speculation based conclusions that offer an alternative explanation for a set of events, based on a conspiracy or plot (Byford, 2010). For example, there is a multitude of theories regarding how John F Kennedy died, including one of America’s most popular conspiracy theories, which holds that Lee Havey Oswald did not act alone in his assassination, a conspiracy that more than half of Americans believe (Jensen, 2013). Similarly, as much has a third of Americans believe that global warming is a political hoax (Swift). The question remains, however, that it is not completely understood what social and psychological factors may give a particular conspiracy theory traction, or make them persuasive to the public.

This is, therefore, a specific element of conspiracy theories which needs further investigation, in order to determine what leads to the growing belief in or attraction to specific conspiracy theory, wheat makes people believe those theories, and if there are shared underlying factors in their persuasiveness. One possible explanation for the persuasiveness of conspiracy theories is epistemic motives (Douglas et al., 2017). People have a natural need to find a causal explanation for various events, in order to create a “stable, accurate and internally consistent” vision of the world (Douglas et al., 2017). Thus, when otherwise unexplainable events, like Lee Harvey Oswald’s seemingly unmotivated killing of President Kennedy, can be more cohesively or more completely explained by a conspiracy theory, like the theory that Oswald was working within a larger political movement, the cohesive explanation is naturally persuasive, and even preferable, to the real cause.

This is tied to the idea that many conspiracy theories are preferred, as explanatory objects, because they protect a belief that the individual is personally invested in. For example, this might include those that believe the conspiracy theory that vaccination is harmful, because they are personally invested in using it as an explanation for their child’s autism (Douglas et al., 2017). This allows them to believe what they want to believe, in spite of overwhelming negative evidence, or scientific findings, that work against the profession made by the conspiracy theory (Lewandowsky et al., 2013). This is supported by the theory that people may find a conspiracy theory persuasive, if they prefer the outcome, or the alternative explanation (Lamberty & Imhoff, 2018). The belief in a conspiracy theory can be related to fear of the consequences of some other truth. However, this also means, according to van Prooijen and Douglas (2018) that most conspiracy theories also have negative consequences for the believer.

Correspondingly, Van Prooijen and Douglas (2018) also suggest that conspiracy theories are social, and so adoption of conspiracy theory, is related to the resolution or reflection of intergroup conflict. All conspiracy theories are based on the assumption that there is a threatening group, taking subversive action. Thus, conspiracy theories assume a social aspect that there are common drives among two opposing groups. Returning to the example of vaccine conspiracy theories, the two groups, with opposing positions are the parents, who are motivated to protect their children, and big pharmaceutical companies who are motivated by profitability in spite of harm.

A second theory, as developed by van Prooijen and Douglas (2018) is that conspiracy theories are universal, or happen in all parts of the world. This fits with the idea that man is naturally inclined to seek explanations for difficult truths, and to invent explanations that align with their vision of the world (Douglas et al., 2017). Thus, people have always, and are likely to continue using conspiracy theories for that purpose (West & Sanders, 2003). However, Buss (2009) notes that while all cultures, and all times do universally refer to some conspiracy theories, certainly not all sub-groups believe in them unequally. In other words, the extent to which a culture relies on and produces conspiracy can vary significantly (Buss, 2009).

Additionally, van Prooijen and Douglas (2018) suggest that the belief in conspiracy theories is always, in one way or another, emotional in nature. They state that conspiracy theory is consistently related to a paradox, in that conspiracy theories are supported by arguments that are based in analytic thinking, and a system (van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018). For example, those that believe conspiracy theories regarding the moon landing persistently justify their belief based on the lack of wind on the moon, and the movement of the flag in the images. Thus, the conspiracy theory is based in analysis of detail, and a belief in fact, regardless of the presence of fact.

However, the paradox is that conspiracy theory cannot rely purely on analysis, rather they are associated with intuitive thinking (Swami et al.2014). People have a strong feeling in a specific belief, and apply this to their interpretation of empirical evidence. Thus, the combination is motivated by speculation, or bias, which allows the pairing of analytical and intuitive thinking to consistently draw conclusions that justify the acceptance of the conspiracy theory.

What, therefore, makes a person more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, or more susceptible to being persuaded by existent theories? Dougles et al., (2016) holds that one factor that reduces the total belief in conspiracy theories is education. The more educated an individual is the less likely they are to believe, or engage in the formation of conspiracy theories. This is because those with less education attribute agency or intentionality, without cause, while the educated are more likely to analyze the evidence and come to a more logical and less intuitive answer.

This is supported by a variety of studies that indicate the emotional nature of conspiracy theories. Grzesiak-Feldman (2013) held that a belief in conspiracy theories could be directly correlated with anxiety. That is to say a person who is naturally more prone to anxiety is also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories because they are already predisposed to believe that their society/way of life is under threat (Jolley, Douglas, & Sutton, 2018). Thus, they have an emotional response to the conspiracy theory, because it supports the fears that are within, or at the base of, their anxiety.

People are also more likely to believe conspiracy theories when they face a situation that they have no control over, especially as it relates to the interworking of various organizations (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008), or political parties (Van Prooijen & Acker, 2015). This may be because introduction of a lack of control causes individuals to seek a measure of control, which they gain through the investment in and adoption of conspiracy theories. This correlates to, or aligns with the previous theory, which stated that people invest in conspiracy theories because of their desire to find explanations that provide a consistent or stable experience of life (Douglas et al., 2017).

This also fits with the findings that most conspiracy theories are mutually confirming, or support one another (Douglas et al., 2019). In other words, from a psychological perspective, an individual that believes in one conspiracy theory is more likely to believe in another. The more individual conspiracy theories that the person adopts, the more their network may expand, and the more that they may invest in (Goertzel, 1994). This is in part because of personal factors, like anxiety, which may make them more likely to be persuaded by conspiracy theories, but also because those that turn to a conspiracy theory to support one pet theory, are likely to adopt others, to support other theories and to amass support for their various positions and beliefs, with or without empirical evidence to support those beliefs (Boudry and Braeckman, 2011). This also ties directly to the belief that individuals can have a predisposition to accepting “epistemologically unwarranted beliefs” (Douglas et al., 2019), including those who are religious, have a lower level of intelligence, or who are given to delusions.

Finally, there is a connection to politics, as it relates to conspiracy theories, that cannot be ignored. Often, those that believe in conspiracy theories are those that are disenfranchised, or alienated by the government (Douglas et al., 2019). These people feel that there is a personal level of unrest between the people and the government, which lends itself to a lack of understanding of the social world (Douglas et al., 2019). In these cases, adoption of conspiracy theory aligns with their social view of the political world.

Considering this review of the existing literature, there is a need to study the political, social, and personal psychological relationship of the individual to conspiracy theories, and what causes individuals to be persuaded to believe conspiracy theories, or what specific characteristics a conspiracy theory must have to be most believable by those most and least likely to invest in conspiracy theories. In other words, there is an interest in what makes a conspiracy more or less persuasive, leading to the the difference in social investment between conspiracies like those surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald, which persuades more than half the population of the United States, versus anti-vax conspiracies that are adhered to by a much smaller percentage of the population.

Method

The study will use a mixed method approach, collecting a combination of qualitative and quantitative data during pre-and post-testing, and exposure to two different sets of stimulus to determine if there are certain characteristics of either the viewer, or the theory itself that makes a conspiracy theory more persuasive.

Participants

The Participants will include 140 (70 male and 70 female) students current pursuing a degree at the UNIVERSITY, who have signed up to participate via the university’s online research participation system (SONA) in exchange for credit in one of their courses. All participants, in order to meet the exclusion criteria, had to confirm that they are registered voters, and that they agree to participate voluntarily.

Apparatus

Participants will be assigned to one of 14 rooms which are equipped with a pencil, a TV, and a copy of the survey or answer form. They will then be asked to watch video clips which present 5 conspiracy theories and their basis, and the individual’s response to the theory. These will include both open ended questions, and Likert based questions to judge their response and the degree to which they were persuaded, and why.

Task One:

The first task is a Likert scale survey, which will be given pre-exposure to the conspiracy theories, which will ask questions related to the individual’s general propensity to believe in conspiracy theory. This will contain questions regarding whether or not they think the government is honest, whether or not they believe that facts are hidden for the good of the country, whether or not they believe there are interlopers interfering with the government, their view of the media’s honesty, and other similar topics. This will be designed to take about 10 minutes.

Task Two:

The second task will include dividing the participants of task one into two groups. The first group, or the control group, will watch standard media reporting videos, and the second group, or the experimental group, will watch videos of conspiracy theory presentations. Both groups will then respond to a series of open-ended questions regarding their response to the video, and whether or not they think they provided a truth.

Task Three:

The final task will involve responding to the pre-test, as a post-test, in order to determine if the group’s views of conspiracy theories, or on the honesty of the government, have changed as a result of viewing the videos. They will also be asked to answer an open ended series of question regarding how they felt persuaded by the videos they watched.

Procedure

To account for individual differences in predisposition, personality, and social and political factors, all participants will be divided into two groups, by random selection, which will attempt to individually distribute these differences (Tice et al., 2007). Each of the two groups will go through all three phases of the experiment/ control. The first phase will take about 15 minutes, the second phase will take about an hour, and the third phase will take about 15 minutes.

Anticipated Results

It is anticipated that between-group factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) can be used in any case where there are two or more individual variables (Hills, 2010), this can be used to determine if the experiment or control groups had similar responses to the videos, or different views of conspiracy theory as a result of exposure to the videos.

Nvivo, or a similar qualitative data software, will be used to determine common themes in responses to the open-ended questions, to determine what is common in the responses or feelings regarding the theories and their persuasiveness.

Discussion

The projected outcome suggests that the hypotheses will be supportable, and that the research will provide evidence that those who demonstrated the features of both the individual and the conspiracy theory which increase belief in the conspiracy, and suggest overall persuasiveness. This will include factors like religiousness, alienation from the government, and lack of education, among others indicated in the literature review (Douglas et al., 2019). However, it will also include some features of the conspiracy itself, like the ability to offer an acceptable or more rational explanation of difficult events, as can be seen in the theories surrounding the death of Kennedy.

Despite the gain that is expected, in terms of understanding, from this study, the limitations should be noted. The weakness is that there is not a way to divide how different racial groups, genders, or other sub-groups may react differently to conspiracy theories, and how that may ultimately influence these results.

References:

1. Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019). Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 40, 3-35.
2. Byford, J. (2011). Towards a Definition of Conspiracy Theories. In Conspiracy Theories (pp. 20-37). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
3. Jensen T. (2013). Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy theory beliefs. Retrieved from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs/
4. Swift A. (2013). Majority in U.S. still believe JFK killed in a conspiracy. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
5. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. Current directions in psychological science, 26(6), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
6. Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—therefore,(climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological science, 24(5), 622-633.
7. Lamberty, P., & Imhoff, R. (2018). Powerful Pharma and Its Marginalized Alternatives?. Social Psychology.
8. Douglas, K. M., and Sutton, R. M. (2008). The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana. J. Soc. Psychol. 148, 210–221. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.148.2.210-222
9. West, H. G., & Sanders, T. (Eds.). (2003). Transparency and conspiracy: Ethnographies of suspicion in the new world order. Duke University Press.
10. Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 359-366.
11. van Prooijen, J. W., & Douglas, K. M. (2019). Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain. European journal of social psychology, 48(7), 897-908.
12. Swami, V., Coles, R., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Furnham, A., Rehim, S., & Voracek, M. (2011). Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real‐world and fictitious conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 443-463.
13. Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2013). The effect of high-anxiety situations on conspiracy thinking. Current Psychology, 32(1), 100-118.
14. Jolley, D., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2018). Blaming a few bad apples to save a threatened barrel: The system‐justifying function of conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 39(2), 465-478.
15. Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. science, 322(5898), 115-117.
16. van Prooijen, J. W., & Acker, M. (2015). The influence of control on belief in conspiracy theories: Conceptual and applied extensions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 753-761.
17. Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 15(4), 731–742. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791630
18. Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2011). Immunizing strategies and epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia, 39(1), 145-161.
19. Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 379-384. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.007
20. Hills, A. M. (2010). Foolproof guide to statistics using PASW. Frenchs Forest, Sydney: Pearson Education

Irrational beliefs consist of a psychological background and construct that might be biased to broader epistemological beliefs, including conspiracy theories and superstitions. The reasoning and behaviour of different individuals do not comply with rational ideas and norms. Irrational beliefs are mostly based on the cultural and pathological phenomena that have become widespread in the social environment. Irrational beliefs also have determinants that influence cognitive thoughts, including motivational and cognitive determinants. However, the most vital factor is cognitive based, mostly affecting an individual’s irrational thinking and behaviour. Cognitive determinants including personality traits, cognitive abilities, and reflection, which attaches to the individual. The complex interaction between an individual’s affective states, which re the anxiety and emotions, offered competitive situations that intimidate irrational beliefs (Chadha. And Slater, 2019).

Irrational thinking makes an individual think the opposite of reality, as it is perceived as what the individual is thinking and how, they interpret the information. Irrational beliefs can be described as a message that is misinterpreted or distorts reality. For example, a conspiracy theory can make an individual bend the existence of the information that led to the creation of the conspiracy theory. A belief can also be described as an irrational belief if it creates extreme emotions in the individual, which leads to distress and the individual engaging in behaviours that might harm themselves. For example, suppose an individual deems themselves powerless in solving their problems. In that case, these individuals are likely to be depressed and may choose to take away their lives, which will be the only way to solve their problems (Turner and Miller, 2019).

Three levels of thinking have guidelines that guide individuals on how they react to life. The inference is one level of thinking which involves inferring or making facts about an event or situation to understand what is going on. Irrational beliefs arise from assumptions if an individual only utilises black and white thinking, seeing things through all or nothing thinking. This type of thinking filters the event to either good or bad, and hence individuals are likely to have irrational beliefs from ignorance of the happenings. Individuals are likely to overgeneralise through inferring; for example, an individual can have a ludicrous idea of “everything is going wrong.” This is from concluding to one situation that went wrong, hence overgeneralising the problem (Balkis and Duru, 2019).

Another level of thinking that influences irrational beliefs is evaluations, which analysing a problem to understand what it means to an individual. Irrational beliefs can arise from evaluations through people rating, which involves putting value or a label on others, thus judging others’ personality and behaviour. This type of thinking might also influence demands from an individual, where from analysing a situation, the individual might belief that certain things are meant to happen or meant to happen. Evaluation occurs when individuals have low to onone awareness of the situation, which might lead to irrational beliefs (Petrides, and Perez-Gonzale, 2017). The third level of thinking is rules, which are the existing beliefs that guide individuals on how they react to life. These beliefs exist from the specific events that have already happened that have meaning to each individual. An example of a rule that exists is “people should always do the right thing.” This rule makes an individual always want to do the right thing depsire their emotions or behaviours. However, not all the rules can be fulfilled or sustained; hence it might lead to irrational beliefs such as “I do not have to do the right thing all the time.”

Irrational beliefs result in too many societal outcomes, including distrust in experts who have important information or events. Such societal effects include the unwillingness of individuals to participate in identifying the right information. Irrational beliefs can influence trauma on individuals who agree or live by the existing rules and ideas, which can break the social cohesion between societies. For example, the spread of conspiracies may affect a particular group in the community to create collective trauma. When there was a conspiracy theory that aliens exist globally, some individuals become more vigilant as they suspect the same. This conspiracy theory also affects the experts who may have vital information on aliens’ existence in the world. Individuals’ motivations and personality traits are also likely to be involved, where the determinants of irrational beliefs will influence rational and cognitive thinking. For example, currently, there is a conspiracy theory circulating on the COVID-19 vaccinations that are to begin worldwide (Wang et al., 2020). The approach is created by anti-vaccine believers who do not trust the vaccines. The conspiracy theory has made irrational beliefs, including that the vaccine will not be sufficient for people; hence there is no need for the public to take the vaccine. Anti-vaccine believers have also provided theories of the vaccine and the possible side-effects of the vaccine. Such conspiracy theory has led the experts who have information about the vaccine to have a second thought about its effectiveness. Such irrational beliefs affect the thinking abilities, self-control and cognitive styles, leading to an individual deviating from their ideas and norms.

Irrational beliefs play a significant role in each individual’s cognitive theory and are associated with various suborders, such as anxiety and depression. Irrational beliefs tent to distort thinking and meaning of events creating anxious and depressed emotions. The epistemological beliefs of an individual also distort an individual’s psychology, resulting in the creation of irrational beliefs. About 40% of the UK population is currently re-considering the thought of having a COVID-19 vaccine from the existing conspiracy theories of different vaccines (Wang et al, 2020). Despite the current information on the vaccines’ effectiveness, there is a probable doubt on the vaccine that has been circulated through conspiracy theories. Individuals can believe contradictory conspiracies over actual data, and this is because individuals lack information and awareness of an event; hence it is easy to agree with conspiracy theories. A neutral control group is required to help individuals understand the irrational beliefs that exist to know which one to belief and sustain and which one not to believe.

Irrational beliefs are created in the cognitive structure where individuals reconstruct events according to their understanding, which results in faulty thinking with negative thoughts. Irrational beliefs and superstitions arise due to the ignorance of individuals who limit their reasoning of events, and the lack of need to acquire knowledge also contributes to ignorance. Irrational beliefs have no basis, as they are based on the effortless reasoning of events. Irrational beliefs also act as barriers to development, where individuals prefer to stick to an idea despite sufficient information that speaks against the event. Individuals must seek factual details of a possibility to get the right information, for example, in the rise of anti-vaccinators of the COVID-19 vaccine (Wang et al, 2020). Individuals are required to understand the available scientific information before making irrational decisions about not getting the vaccine.

Experts in different fields of study should be involved in eradicating irrational beliefs, and the best and acceptable way is to enlighten individuals to reduce ignorance. Experts can accomplish this by providing sound education through training and providing vital information to individuals within society. Even though some superstitions and conspiracy thoeries are embedded into an individual’s mind, experts need to challenge ignorant minds to enhance widespread thinking or events or situations. Baseless information is caused by ignorance.

The year is 1963, the most common baby name is Michael, ‘Surfin’ USA’ is the best song ever created, and the President of the United States was just assassinated. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as he rode in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas, perhaps killed by those within the government he was running. According to thousands of people influenced by conspiracy theorists JFK was killed by the CIA for several reasons: firstly that he was a president weak on communism, especially evident in his refusal to provide air support for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, secondly that the CIA is the only organization within the United States that can carry out operations without the oversight or knowledge of the president, and lastly that they can be connected to several theories about the carrying out of the assassination. In the JFK Conspiracy, the CIA is the commonly blamed party for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. As a powerful, prevalent, and oftentimes perceived as controlling organization the CIA is a perfect example of the ‘enemy above’, especially within the context of the JFK conspiracy theory as the accused facilitator of the assassination.

A conspiracy theory is defined as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators” (Merriam-webster.com), as described by Jesse Walker these ‘powerful conspirators’ can take many forms. The first ‘enemy outside’ comes from the idea that enemies can take the form of someone outside of a given group, such as communist governments like the Soviet Union and Cuba. Second Walker identifies an ‘enemy below’ as the group that is frequently blamed for tragedies, for example, in the JFK CIA Conspiracy, conspiracy theorists identify ‘three tramps’ as potential conspirators or even the true assassins of JFK, pushing the blame onto a ‘lesser’ group. Next Walker highlights the ‘enemy within’, which describes the blame being pushed onto a group of people that walk among common people; frequently this creates a paranoia that people are trying to undo or affect society without being discovered because these people can hide in plain sight among common people. Walker also explains the ‘benevolent conspiracy’, which describes a war between good and evil “behind the scenes” so to speak, for example, God and his angels have been described as being in a war against Satan and his demons, and this battle has gone on forever without the common world realizing it’s going on. Finally, the last and most relevant to the JFK Conspiracy enemy that Walker identifies is the ‘enemy above’, which can either describe a supernatural, extraterrestrial, or powerful source of liability for given circumstances within a conspiracy theory. The archetypes can help explain and demonstrate differences between different conspiracy theories by distinguishing the blamed parties for each aspect of a theory. For example, within the JFK conspiracy theories, the different people accused bounced from the blaming of three tramps to the CIA, which are widely different types of enemies, the three tramps being the enemy below and the CIA being the enemy above.

According to the JFK CIA Conspiracy, anti-communists and anti-Castro extremists within the CIA had President Kennedy assassinated because Kennedy was planning on alleviating conflict with both Cuba and the Soviet Union. This storyline supports the ideology that The United States as a capitalist nation, as well as a sort of ‘international police’, had the obligation to stay involved in these conflicts. The blame for this horrendous act is passed to the CIA through three different theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The first of these theories is one dubbed the Clay Shaw Theory. This theory accentuates the idea that the CIA used a business, Permindex, as a front for their mischievous acts. This theory was founded by Jim Garrison, the lawyer who charged Clay Shaw with being involved with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and was founded not guilty. Conspiracy theorists were unconvinced by this, however, and claim that Clay Shaw not only was involved in the assassination but also worked for the CIA through the front of the international trading company, Permindex. Other support of this theory comes from a video of Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Castro leaflets in front of the New Orleans International Trade Mart with Shaw depicted in the background, linking the two parties and further linking Oswald to the CIA. In addition, during the trial Garrison called a witness, Perry Russo, an insurance salesman to the stand; Russo stated that he was introduced to Oswald as ‘Leon Oswald’ and Shaw as ‘Clay Bertrand’ at a party of an anti-Castro activist where he claims that the two discussed their plan for assassinating Kennedy. Identifying specifics of the conversation for the ‘triangulation of crossfire’ and alibis for the conspirators.

Another theory that emerged among the constantly released CIA documents regarding the assassination is the Second Oswald Theory, which identifies that there were in fact two Lee Harvey Oswalds and that the CIA set one of them up. The two Oswalds differed radically, the first, given by conspiracy theorists the name ‘Harvey’ was the child of Hungarian parents, spoke Russian, and was pro-communism, the second, ‘Lee’, was from the southern United States, didn’t support communism, and didn’t speak any Russian. Theorists believe that Harvey was the man who was framed for the assassination by the CIA, had traveled to Russia, and was shot by Jack Ruby. Whereas Lee was the man that the CIA had been involved with and who actually had assassinated the president. These claims are supported by the records stating that Oswald visited the Cuban-Soviet embassies and was described as, unlike the actual Lee Harvey Oswald, who was arrested. Next, the man who visited the USSR was described as ‘speaking very poor Russian’, but in fact, the actual Lee Harvey Oswald could speak Russian fluently. The most convincing piece of evidence however comes from the conversation between President Lyndon B. Johnson and an investigator of the assassination: “LBJ: ‘Have you established any more about [Oswald’s] visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?’. Hoover: ‘No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the embassy down there’” (document declassified from the National Archives, Oct. 26, 1993). This tape demonstrates the fact that even the investigator of the assassination was unsure of the identity of the man who was arrested and later killed by Jack Ruby. Finally, Oswald’s wife had the body of Oswald exhumed after his burial due to the questions and criticism from the American public. The casket was cracked open and appeared to be broken into, the mortician also stated that Oswald’s head had been severed from his body, leading many to believe that the CIA had in fact broken into and replaced the head of Oswald to hide their involvement.

Finally, the CIA has been linked to the assassination of JFK due to a theory called the Three Tramps Theory. This theory identifies three people allegedly arrested adjacent to Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination of the president. The three tramps were identified by conspiracy theorists as E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and Fred Crisman. E. Howard Hunt was a man involved in the Bay of Pigs Invasion and worked in the White House as a plumber during President Nixon’s Watergate scandal. In addition, Hunt admitted that he was involved in the assassination on his deathbed to his son, who released a biography of Hunt. The second tramp was identified as Frank Sturgis, who was also implicated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Watergate burglary. Sturgis was also involved in the assassination, according to Hunt’s confession, and his ex-girlfriend identified him as a gunman in the assassination. The third tramp, Fred Crisman, testified in the Clay Shaw case and often would write about conspiracy theories and paranormal activities himself. The record of this arrest is also under investigation by conspiracy theorists because of the lack of an arrest record of the three tramps who were photographed walking into the police station shortly after the murder of President Kennedy.

These theories support the idea that the CIA was involved, and in some cases, planned the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and even went to great lengths to hide their involvement. Both theories highlight the potential involvement of an ‘enemy above’ and often employ the manipulation of the ‘enemy below’ and the ‘enemy within’ with the use of a common person to actually commit the murder. According to conspiracy theorists, the CIA was motivated by multiple selfish factors and acted upon them, even though they were acting against the principles of the American people. This case has given birth to a series of generations who live in a state of fear and distrust of their own government, going to great lengths to find the truth and, despite the promise of releasing relevant information, have refused to give up a percentage of materials regarding the investigations and particulars of the case.

This essay will demonstrate that rather than automatically dismissing conspiracy theories as fanciful and irrelevant in product design, the designer should acknowledge them and carefully consider their potential impact on the success of a design solution. Examples of non-mainstream ideas and beliefs that have been incorporated into the design of products will be provided, including where product designers will be aware that these ideas and beliefs exist due to the emergence of a conspiracy theory. It will be shown that conspiracy theories can be successfully incorporated into a design with example from the past and present. Also that as values change and culture shifts in society, including as a result of unproveable yet influential conspiracy theories and beliefs, there exists an opportunity for product manufacturers and service developers such as, in the case of medical professionals who have in the main rejected traditional and emerging homeopathic treatments, to revisit and accommodate these belief systems to ensure that they remain relevant and inclusive. It will conclude that the product designer benefits from knowing the target customers well and that in learning about his customers s/he should avoid judgement. In doing so the product designer is then free to set aside his or her prejudices and skepticism and instead approach the design process from the point of view of the users, their expectations in terms of form and function in a more targeted fashion. In this way the designer is able to meet the product/service users’ desire for a product that is not out of step with his or her principles and value base, thus making it more attractive, relevant, accessible and in the end more successful. Through this paper will demonstrate that greater attention to existing conspiracy theories which may impact on a product’s level of success should play a bigger consideration in the development of design projects, with a focus on deeper investigative research – a search for the ‘truth’ and hidden motivations of products and services, whether real or imagined.

The Oxford English Dictionary, describes a conspiracy theory as “an event or phenomenon [that] occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties’ and ‘a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event’. This may be incomplete though, as will be shown, because there are examples of conspiracy theories that remain just that – theories – because information is deliberately hidden by the actor or others whose interests may be compromised in some way. For example, were authorities decide that for reasons of national security important details from an event or incident are concealed, leading to an incomplete or unlikely picture and subsequent distrust of authority. In Britain, there are presently **** items being held by Government Departments with time bans on their publication of various lengths, ranging from *** to ***. Each of these has the potential to create the conditions to germinate and subsequently cause a new conspiracy theory to emerge. Robust, compelling evidence being necessary in preventing an official position on an event or incident from being accepted as a credible and bona fide statement of fact by those aware of an anomaly or omission in the account provided. And of course, if a conspiracy theory is baseless it cannot be proven, robustly or otherwise. Yet many theories are extremely well travelled and whilst often scoffed at, they are nonetheless widely known and accepted by many as fact.

Before moving on, it is worth exploring the similarities and difference between belief systems arising from conspiracy theories and faith religions, given that both could be said to lack robust evidence to back up assertions made. This is not to belittle, or disrespect religion in any way, but it is important to inform the reader that beliefs, who some may regard as fanciful and misguided, can nonetheless become mainstream and form the basis of belief systems with many millions of subscribers, or in the case of most organised religions, believers or worshippers.

Comparisons between recognised religions’ and belief systems based on conspiracy theories may appear a stretch, however, those theories not yet in the mainstream consciousness and still considered to be conspiratorial rather than bona fide, especially widely held theories, is relevant because it is logical to arrive at the conclusion that the early proponents of some, if not most, religions may well have been accused of being the equivalent to the conspiracy theorists of today. For example, the disciples portrayed in the early scriptures in the Christian faith were vilified for claiming that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. It is impossible to know for sure if the accounts of the establishment of this religion are based on actual events given that the one source of information available to us, beyond blind faith, is the Old Testament, the veracity of which cannot be corroborated. Further, in executing Jesus Christ it could be argued that this act had the effect of widening his appeal through martyrdom, and as a result the cause of having him accepted as the Messiah was advanced, not diminished.

Perhaps an example from the more recent post-war period can be more helpful in this regard. Launched as a new religion in 1952, Scientology has attracted harsh criticism due in part to its roots, having been devised by a Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, who was an author of science fiction and fantasy stories from New Jersey in the USA. Scientology has been described as,

“[A] body of religious beliefs and practices launched in May 1952 by American author L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard initially developed a program of ideas called Dianetics, which was distributed through the Dianetics Foundation. The foundation soon entered bankruptcy, and Hubbard lost the rights to his seminal publication Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1952. He then recharacterized the subject as a religion and renamed it Scientology, retaining the terminology, doctrines, the E-meter, and the practice of auditing. Within a year, he regained the rights to Dianetics and retained both subjects under the umbrella of the Church of Scientology.”

Yet despite its suspect provenance and the motivation behind it being well documented and questionable, Hubbard’s new ‘religion’ remains buoyant, including in its membership ‘A’ list Hollywood actors such as Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. The religion’s compelling claim “that the true self of a person was a thetan – an immortal, omniscient and potentially omnipotent entity”. Also, that “thetans, having created the material universe, had forgotten their god-like powers and become trapped in physical bodies. Scientology aimed to ‘rehabilitate’ each person’s self (the thetan) to restore its original capacities.”

Many would argue that Scientology has conspiracy theory written all over it as it ticks many of the boxes that have come to define the term. Scientology is likely to be viewed as fanciful by non-believers and is self-evidently not backed up by robust evidence but appears to rely upon the very fact that some elements of it are hidden from view, even from its own members other than those at the top: the religion’s elite. A cynic would suggest that this subterfuge helps it tick the ‘self-contained box’ on the ‘conspiracy theory bingo card, which is a typical feature of a conspiracy theory. This secrecy is likely to ensure that this ‘religion’ remains neither provable or disprovable. Consequently, it can be argued that it is not the lack of evidence or the nature of the claims made by mainstream religions that matters, or even how logical, feasible or otherwise these claims are, but simply the fact that they have managed to become mainstream itself, and in doing so, have gained credibility without the burden of proof.

There is of course no such recognition or access to the corridors of power and influence to proponents of conspiracy theories, other than a few celebrity ‘truthers’ such as Russel Brand a British comedian and David Ike, a previous television presenter, the theories not having achieved sufficient mainstream popularity. However, setting aside the fact that the exceptionalism and reverence that established religions are traditionally afforded in contemporary western cultures, there is a characteristic shared by both. ‘Faith’ is a necessity for the religious and the conspiracy theorist and as will be shown, it is this ‘faith’ in a belief system, conspiratorial or otherwise, that can potentially interact with product design.

Whilst the proponents of conspiracy theories are likely to be ridiculed and ostrasised by mainstream commentators, if they achieve sufficient support, those in power often embrace the theory instead of rejected it out of hand, despite the obvious absence of evidence, compelling or otherwise, underpinning the belief system. For example, a number of Church of England Bishops and other religious leaders are automatically entitled to sit in Westminster’s House of Lords, presumably due to their perceived importance to social cohesion and presumably the notion that as heads of recognised religions of Britain they are moral gatekeepers. The fact that the Church of England is formally accepted as the custodian of English Christian values and moral life is confirmation of this. This access to the corridors of power supports the theory, in the case of Christianity at least, that it is widely viewed as a force for good and its representatives are thus co-opted onto influential positions within the undemocratic House of Lords within the British Parliament.

Introduction

The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, is an event etched into the collective memory of the United States. It propelled the nation into World War II and forever changed the course of history. While the official narrative holds that the attack was a surprise military strike by the Japanese, some alternative theories and conspiracy claims have emerged over the years. In this critical essay, we will delve into the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, examining the evidence and evaluating their credibility.

The Conspiracy Theories

One of the most prominent conspiracy theories surrounding Pearl Harbor suggests that high-ranking officials within the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the attack but deliberately allowed it to happen. The theorists argue that this intentional neglect was motivated by a desire to sway public opinion towards entering the war and to gain support for the war effort.

Supporters of the conspiracy theory point to various alleged pieces of evidence. They highlight intercepted messages that allegedly hinted at the attack but were either overlooked or intentionally withheld from military commanders. They also question the absence of defensive measures and the lack of readiness on the part of the U.S. military, particularly the positioning of the Pacific Fleet.

Critique and Historical Perspectives

While conspiracy theories can be compelling, it is essential to critically evaluate the evidence and consider the prevailing historical perspectives. The official investigations conducted after the attack, such as the Roberts Commission and the subsequent Congressional hearings, found no evidence of deliberate collusion or foreknowledge of the attack.

Moreover, historians and scholars who have extensively studied the events leading up to the attack generally dismiss the conspiracy theories as lacking substantial evidence. They argue that the supposed smoking guns are often misinterpreted or taken out of context. The intercepted messages, for example, were decrypted after the attack, making it impossible for officials to act on them before the event occurred.

Additionally, the scale and complexity of such a conspiracy involving multiple individuals and organizations make it highly unlikely that it could have been kept a secret for so long without any credible whistleblower or substantial leaks.

Conclusion

While conspiracy theories surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack continue to circulate, a critical examination of the evidence and historical perspectives casts doubt on their validity. The weight of scholarly research, official investigations, and prevailing historical consensus supports the notion that the attack was indeed a surprise military strike by the Japanese.

It is essential to approach conspiracy theories with skepticism and to base our understanding of historical events on well-documented evidence and rigorous research. Engaging in critical analysis and considering multiple perspectives helps us separate fact from fiction and prevents us from falling victim to baseless claims that can distort our understanding of significant historical events like the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Conspiracy theories have been around for decades there will always be people who will believe in conspiracy ideation examples: assassination of John F. Kennedy, 9/11 terrorist attacks or government cover-ups of alien visitation. Aaronovitch (2009) describes conspiracy belief as “the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable”. Does this mean that there is something wrong with believing in conspiracy theories? Believing in conspiracy theories from what has been researched and studied has negative social, health and civic outcomes which referring to Swani et al. paper agrees that exposure to conspiracy theories reduces intention to engage in politics, to vaccinate and to engage in positive health behaviors (Swami et al., 2014). According to Douglas, Sutton & Cichocka (2017) suspected that belief in conspiracy theories were driven by motives such as epistemic (understanding one’s own environment), existential (being safe and in control of one’s environment) and social (maintaining a positive image of the self and the social group) (Douglas et al., 2017). This supports what has been theorized by previous research about people who believe in conspiracy theories feel that they are alienated from society and powerless (Douglas et al., 2017). There has not been enough research on conspiracy theories and the personality traits that relates with them. In this study we are looking at the role of higher education in mitigating conspiracy ideation, by promoting analytical thinking. We have three hypotheses they are: 1) science majors will have a lower mean GCB score relative to non-science majors; 2) science majors will have a lower mean GCB score relative to humanities majors; 3) science majors will have a lower mean GCB score relative to ‘other’ majors.

Method

Participants

In order to recruit a large amount of undergraduate university students, participants were selected from an online platform called Prolific. A sample size of 1014 British university undergraduate students were recruited who had studied at a United Kingdom university. Participants were primarily male (52.5%) while 3.4% answered other. Ages ranged from 18 to 75 years (M = 36.3; SD = 13.4).

Measures

After clicking the link to the survey, participants provided informed consent, then they answered some demographic questions about their age, their sex and education. Participants were coded as science, humanities or other, depending on what their university major they were doing. The scale used in this experiment was the General Conspiracist Belief Scale (GCB) which measures individual differences in generic conspiracist ideation (Brotherton et. al., 2013), the scale is valid and reliable. An example of a question asked in the GCB scale would be “the government permits or perpetrates acts of terrorism on its own soil, disguising its involvement”. Participants read each question and responded via a 5-point Likert scale (1: ‘definitely not true’; 2: ‘probably not true’; 3: ‘not sure/cannot decide’; 4: ‘probably true’; 5: ‘definitely true’). A mean score was calculated for each participant (N = 1014) by adding up and then averaging their answers across the 15-item scale (scores will be between 1 to 5). Lower scores suggest a lower tendency to engage in conspiracy ideation whereas higher scores suggest a higher tendency to engage in conspiracy ideation.

Procedure

After participants had given informed consent and filled out the demographic questions asked. They were then asked to fill out the GCB 15-item scale that measured five facets of conspiracy ideation which are government malfeasance (GM) which reflects claims of ongoing criminal conspiracy within governments, extraterrestrial cover-up (ET) concerning the clandestine existence of aliens, malevolent global (MG) are related claims of global events being organized by small, secret groups to utilize total control (Brotherton et al., 2013). There are also personal well-being (PW) concerns over the spread of diseases and the use of mind-control technology on personal health and freedom, and lastly, control of information (CI) containing to the unethical control and withholding information by organizations such as the government, the media, scientists and corporations (Brotherton et al., 2013).

As the independent variables (use this to predict, explain or cause a change of the outcome) which are university majors in this study, they can’t be manipulated. In this study there are 3 levels of the independent variables (IV): sciences, humanities and other while the dependent variable (the outcome) is the GCB score. As we are not manipulating the IV’s the type design study, we can carry out is a quasi-experiment study, a quasi-experiment is used when researchers can’t choose where to place the participants in random groups. Along with this study being a quasi-experiment it is also a between-subjects design meaning that the participants of the study are tested once in their allocated groups.

Results

As there were three independent variables (university majors) that we wanted to test with on dependent variable (GCB scale), we employed the use of independent samples t-tests (3 times). In the first independent samples t-test we conducted was to compare science majors (n = 451) with the non-science (both humanities and ‘other’) majors (n = 563). In regard to our hypothesis, science majors (M = 3.66, SD = 1.07) had significantly lower GCB mean scores than non-science majors (M = 3.82, SD = 1.04), t(1012) = -2.39, p = .01.

The second independent samples t-test was performed to show the comparison of science majors (n = 451) with humanities majors (n = 326). With relation to our hypothesis, science majors (M = 3.66, SD = 1.07), did not have a GCB mean score lower than humanities majors (M = 3.69, SD = 1.09), t(775) = 0.37, p = 0.7.

The last independent samples t-test conducted compared science majors (n = 451) with ‘other’ majors (n = 237). Regarding our hypothesis, science majors (M = 3.66, SD = 1.07) did have a significantly lower GCB mean score than ‘other’ majors (M = 4.00, SD = 0.96), t(686) = -4.09.

Discussion

The results showed that both science majors will have a lower mean GCB score relative to non-science majors and science majors will have a lower mean GCB score relative to ‘other’ majors hypotheses were supported. Meanwhile science majors having a lower mean GCB score relative to humanities majors hypothesis was not supported. Analytic thinking is conscious, deliberate and rule-based and in a previous study done by Swami et al. it indicated that belief in conspiracy theories was significantly negatively correlated with analytic thinking style and open mind thinking (question one’s own assumptions, a tendency to analyze options and alternative perspectives, according the Stonovich and West (1997)) (Swami et al., 2014). Science majors do need to be able to think analytical when it comes to their studies. Also, in previous study done by Swami et al. who did look at how analytic reduces belief in conspiracy theories and found that not only did analytic thinking negatively associate with belief in conspiracy theories but it also could be possible that having a more analytic thinking style could reduce that belief in conspiracy theories (Swami et al., 2014). In our study it suggests that science majors have a higher analytical thinking style than that of ‘other’ majors but it does not show why that is how that could be a good thinking style to have to counter act belief in conspiracy theories. Humanities majors seem to have some analytic thinking style as they did not have as low a score than science majors, that may be due to them being able to think critically. Critical thinking has been experimented on with science majors along with non-science majors reporting on a science news report, science majors showed that they had a significant difference in their favor in identifying and formulating evidence but not that much of a difference (Lin, 2013). Both science majors and humanities majors need to be able to be able to conscious about what they think about as well as being affectively neutral in their thinking. How can we think more analytical in the future and what makes analytic thinking so important against conspiracy theories, this would be something that future studies could focus on as well as what makes certain people more incline to believe in conspiracy theories. As there is not a lot of research on conspiracy theories at the moment, it is gaining momentum, studies are quite board. This study was board as it included a big section of science majors but not specific in what area they were in. Another drawback from this study was that it only involved university students and not the public. The sample number was a good size though. This study was good in that it showed that the majors we choose in university change the way we look at the world and the way we think of items from rumors, to news reports to classroom homework.

Introduction

The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, is an event etched into the collective memory of the United States. It propelled the nation into World War II and forever changed the course of history. While the official narrative holds that the attack was a surprise military strike by the Japanese, some alternative theories and conspiracy claims have emerged over the years. In this critical essay, we will delve into the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, examining the evidence and evaluating their credibility.

The Conspiracy Theories

One of the most prominent conspiracy theories surrounding Pearl Harbor suggests that high-ranking officials within the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the attack but deliberately allowed it to happen. The theorists argue that this intentional neglect was motivated by a desire to sway public opinion towards entering the war and to gain support for the war effort.

Supporters of the conspiracy theory point to various alleged pieces of evidence. They highlight intercepted messages that allegedly hinted at the attack but were either overlooked or intentionally withheld from military commanders. They also question the absence of defensive measures and the lack of readiness on the part of the U.S. military, particularly the positioning of the Pacific Fleet.

Critique and Historical Perspectives

While conspiracy theories can be compelling, it is essential to critically evaluate the evidence and consider the prevailing historical perspectives. The official investigations conducted after the attack, such as the Roberts Commission and the subsequent Congressional hearings, found no evidence of deliberate collusion or foreknowledge of the attack.

Moreover, historians and scholars who have extensively studied the events leading up to the attack generally dismiss the conspiracy theories as lacking substantial evidence. They argue that the supposed smoking guns are often misinterpreted or taken out of context. The intercepted messages, for example, were decrypted after the attack, making it impossible for officials to act on them before the event occurred.

Additionally, the scale and complexity of such a conspiracy involving multiple individuals and organizations make it highly unlikely that it could have been kept a secret for so long without any credible whistleblower or substantial leaks.

Conclusion

While conspiracy theories surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack continue to circulate, a critical examination of the evidence and historical perspectives casts doubt on their validity. The weight of scholarly research, official investigations, and prevailing historical consensus supports the notion that the attack was indeed a surprise military strike by the Japanese.

It is essential to approach conspiracy theories with skepticism and to base our understanding of historical events on well-documented evidence and rigorous research. Engaging in critical analysis and considering multiple perspectives helps us separate fact from fiction and prevents us from falling victim to baseless claims that can distort our understanding of significant historical events like the attack on Pearl Harbor.