Conspiracy Theories Are Oppositional
From the core definition of conspiracy theory as the belief that a conspiracy that the public should know about has been concealed from them, we can logically deduce a key defining characteristic. Conspiracy theories are set up, explicitly or implicitly, in opposition to a publicly accepted version of reality. They imply that a false version of reality has been promoted or protected by the conspirators and their unwitting stooges. Some definitions include a reference to the oppositional nature of conspiracy theories, but they tend to portray them as being opposed to official accounts in particular (e.g., “as authentic alternatives to official explanations”; Denovan et al. 2020, p. 1395). Unfortunately, however, conspiracy theories are all-too-often promulgated by elected leaders and officials, as we saw in the aftermath of the 2020 US presidential election. Indeed, there appear to be several cases of government leaders supporting conspiracy theories (e.g., Hugo Chavez in Venezuela; van der Wal et al. 2018). Thus, we should not disqualify a narrative like the alleged steal of the 2020 US presidential election from being defined as a conspiracy theory because it has been advocated by officials. Though many conspiracy theories will oppose official narratives, we propose that by definition, all conspiracy theories propose competing alternatives to publicly accepted versions of reality—whether officially endorsed or not.
The contention between conspiracy theories and accepted narratives is also moralized. Since the public should know and accept these conspiracy narratives about events and circumstances of public importance, it is morally wrong that they do not. Blame goes of course to the conspirators who conceal their behavior. It may also extend to the media for their complicity and incompetence and to the public who are culpable for their gullibility—their sinful inability and unwillingness to see through the lies that they are being told (Popper 1963). Far from simply valorizing “the people” in some populist fashion, conspiracy theories represent them as sinfully easy to manipulate. This may help explain why belief in conspiracy theories has generally been found to be associated with Machiavellian beliefs that the public are easily fooled (Douglas & Sutton 2011). This moralization of truth, together with conspiracy theories’ opposition to accepted versions of reality, entails that conspiracy theories are part of a political battle to decide what people believe and determine the publicly accepted version of truth. This presumably explains why conspiracy adherents frequently identify as “truthers” and proselytize in physical and online channels for their version of reality (Harambam & Aupers 2017, Wood & Douglas 2013).
Conspiracy Theories Describe Malevolent or Forbidden Acts
Another important defining feature of conspiracy theories can be deduced from their publicness. The conspiracies they allege are almost always malevolent—that is, against the public interest. The essential reason for this is that secrecy is necessary to execute the alleged plot and to maintain the deception that may have motivated it. If the plot was discovered and taken seriously by authorities, it would be interrupted. There is some room in this formulation for benign conspiracies. For example, in the QAnon system of conspiracy theories, the agent Q and former US President Donald Trump are part of a plot to neutralize a Satanic cabal of pedophilic Democrats (Enders et al. 2022). Their conspiracy is therefore represented as ultimately benign but it is nonetheless forbidden—as it acts outside of normal legal constraints and against the interests of a so-called Deep State that, if it could, would shut the conspiracy down. In sum, conspiracies that are of public interest need secrecy to succeed, and thus they must in general entail outcomes that are malign, or at least forbidden. This essential feature may help explain why conspiracy beliefs generally seem to be reinforced—and in turn can strengthen—misanthropic views of human nature, pessimism, and anxiety (e.g., Douglas & Sutton 2011; Liekefett et al. 2021).
