This perspective on causality is unusual in psychology. We seldom build theory about the causes and consequences of a variable by paying attention to its properties. However, it is routine in other sciences. For example, in the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the very first things that was done was to sequence the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Wang et al. 2020) and to image the virus to determine key phenotypes such as its characteristic spikes and the distinctive chemistry of its membranes (Hsieh et al. 2020). This information is of crucial value in determining how the virus infects human cells, the course of the resulting disease, its transmission from person to person, and even the proposal of simple remedies such as wearing masks and handwashing with soap. The progression from understanding the genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of the virus to understanding its transmission, effects, and treatment can be aided by deriving hypotheses from these core features of the virus together with auxiliary assumptions that have been established in health and medical sciences. At the very least, knowledge about the genetic and physical properties of the virus can help us select promising theoretical ideas and rule out others that are likely to lead nowhere (Steel 2007). Similarly, a clear and reasoned description of the ontology of conspiracy theories can help us build, select, test, and integrate theories of their causes, consequences, and social transmission.
In an effort to illustrate the potential of this approach, we offer a new descriptive analysis of the defining features of conspiracy theories. This analysis is unusual in that the defining features are derived logically from a very small set of axioms defining conspiracies and by specifying which types of conspiracy are the subject matter of conspiracy theories. As we develop this definition, we highlight how it can help understand some of the best-known and most important findings in the literature on conspiracy theories so far. To complement this essentially retrodictive exercise of sketching out an integration of existing findings and theoretical ideas, we then explain how the definition we have offered can organize and motivate further theoretical and empirical insights into conspiracy theories, including the generation of new and testable research hypotheses.
REDEFINING CONSPIRACY THEORIES
A good place to start when we more closely consider what conspiracy theories are is the first term, conspiracy. A conspiracy is a coordinated and concealed effort by two or more actors to bring about an outcome. This definition can be lifted straight out of dictionaries. Coordinated, often secretive behavior fitting this definition is a central feature of human life (van Prooijen & van Vugt 2018). Conspiracies do not have to be malicious nor have historical, social, or political significance. For example, to plan a joyous surprise birthday party with friends is to participate in a conspiracy. This kind of conspiracy holds little interest for scholars who are interested in conspiracy theories that have the power to subvert, divide, and galvanize communities. Thus, following most researchers in the field, we restrict the definition of conspiracy theories to those about certain kinds of conspiracy (e.g., Brotherton et al. 2013, Imhoff & Bruder 2014, Uscinski 2018, Wagner-Egger & Bangerter 2007). This choice is essentially arbitrary, but it is important that it is reasoned and explicit. Researchers have seldom provided an integrated rationale for the definitional criteria they have chosen (cf. Nera & Schöpfer 2022). Their choices often reflect their particular theoretical preferences. For example, researchers who prefer to study or emphasize irrational features of conspiracy theories tend to define them in these terms (e.g., “such beliefs are usually unsubstantiated and implausible”; Brotherton et al. 2013), whereas researchers who study their political motivations may not include rationality or epistemic criteria in their definitions (e.g., as “an explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good”; Uscinski 2018, p. 235).
