ArticleFrontiers in psychology2013
Recursive fury: conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Beyond "Monologicality"? Exploring Conspiracist Worldviews.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Article
- Thirty shades of truth: conspiracy theories as stories of individuation, not of pathological delusion.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
- The Sarrazin effect: the presence of absurd statements in conspiracy theories makes canonical information less plausible.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
- "What about building 7?" A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
- Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious mentality: an integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2014-03-27Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Legal Reasons and/or Threats ·
- Erratum issued
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky et al., in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyses the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper's conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere's response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.