The Language of Conspiracy Theories
Negative Emotions and Themes Facilitate Diffusion Online
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3266743 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tom Cosgrove (0000-0001-7736-7538, Bond University, corresponding author), Mark Bahr (0000-0002-2191-1941, Bond University) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Publication date | 2024-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | SAGE Open (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2158-2440 • E-ISSN: 2158-2440 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/21582440241290413 |
| OpenAlex | W4403576019 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 64 |
Global polling has seen an increase in endorsement of conspiratorial beliefs in recent years, with social media platforms receiving criticism for their potential role in facilitating this spread. The current study analyzed the presence of emotions and themes in conspiratorial content (revolving around conspiracy theories or conspiratorial ideas) on Twitter (now "X") and Reddit when compared to scientific and general discussion, and the ability of emotions and themes to predict engagement (likes, shares etc.) in conspiratorial spheres. Approximately four million words worth of content were collected from Twitter and Reddit and analyzed using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) tool to determine concentration of different emotions and themes. Conspiratorial discussions were found to show significantly higher rates of anger, anxiety, power, and death compared to both scientific and general discussions across both platforms. Engagement was successfully predicted within conspiracy discussions; higher levels of anger, anxiety, power, and death predicted higher levels of engagement in conspiracy discussions. Contrary to previous findings, positive emotions were predictive of lower levels of engagement in conspiracy-related discussions. The findings suggest that conspiratorial content relies on powerful negative emotional responses to gain traction and increase audience engagement. The findings are discussed in the context of cognitive processes involved in the adoption of conspiracy theories, and we offer suggestions for researchers developing educational interventions and social media platforms to reduce the spread of conspiracy theories online
Misinformation and Its Impacts · Psychology · Social Psychology
The Effect of High-Anxiety Situations on Conspiracy Thinking
Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements
Suspicion of institutions
Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time?
How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks
Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion
Prospect Theory
An exploratory study of Covid-19 misinformation on Twitter
Engagement in Emotional News on Social Media
Psycholinguistic Markers of Covid-19 Conspiracy Tweets and Predictors of Tweet Dissemination
Can Conspiracy Beliefs Be Beneficial? Longitudinal Linkages Between Conspiracy Beliefs, Anxiety, Uncertainty Aversion, and Existential Threat
The Psychology of Conspiracy
Fake News and The Economy of Emotions
Looking under the tinfoil hat
Emotions in Online Content Diffusion
Covid-19 Scientific Facts vs. Conspiracy Theories
Why conspiracy theories matter
Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Social Media, Cognitive Reflection, and Conspiracy Beliefs
The use of emotions in conspiracy and debunking videos to engage publics on YouTube
The language of conspiracy
Identity concerns drive belief
From social talk to social action
Beyond belief
Engaging with conspiracy theories
Belief in Conspiracy Theories
Belief in conspiracy theories and attitudes toward political violence
Conspiracy theories as part of history
Understanding Conspiracy Theories
Suspicion in the workplace
Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups
Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |