Abstract

Little is known about ordinary people’s understandings of conspiracy beliefs and how these understandings relate to the perspectives of researchers and scholars. Working within a social constructionist epistemological framework, we conducted a Q-methodology study aiming to identify a range of lay perspectives on two key topics: the defining features of conspiracy beliefs; and aspects considered important in judging their plausibility. Fifty-six people (32 men and 24 women), recruited via regional UK Facebook groups, sorted their agreement with a set of statements on each of the two topics. A principal component analysis, followed by varimax rotation, was performed on each data set. Five accounts about the defining features of conspiracy beliefs were identified: that they are false, illogical and harmful; that they are forms of political critique; that there are varied types; that they are entertaining but ineffectual; and that they are held by a self-reinforcing minority. Four accounts about their evaluation were identified: conventional realist criteria; the importance of personal judgment; skeptical realism; and the assessment of critical thinking. The findings are discussed in the context of the literature and limitations of the study are considered. Implications for research and educational and policy interventions are outlined.

摘要

人们对普通人对阴谋论的理解以及这些理解与研究人员和学者的观点之间的关系知之甚少。在社会建构主义认识论框架内工作，我们进行了 Q 方法研究，旨在确定对两个关键主题的一系列非专业观点：阴谋信念的定义特征；以及在判断其合理性时被认为重要的方面。通过英国地区 Facebook 群组招募的 56 人（32 名男性和 24 名女性）根据关于这两个主题中的每一个主题的一组声明对他们的协议进行了排序。对每个数据集进行主成分分析，然后进行 varimax 旋转。确定了关于阴谋信念定义特征的五种说法：它们是错误的、不合逻辑的和有害的；它们是政治批评的形式；有多种类型；他们很有趣，但没有效果；并且他们由自我强化的少数人持有。确定了四个关于他们评估的说明：传统的现实主义标准；个人判断的重要性；怀疑的现实主义；以及批判性思维的评估。研究结果在文献的背景下进行了讨论，并考虑了研究的局限性。概述了对研究、教育和政策干预的影响。研究结果在文献的背景下进行了讨论，并考虑了研究的局限性。概述了对研究、教育和政策干预的影响。研究结果在文献的背景下进行了讨论，并考虑了研究的局限性。概述了对研究、教育和政策干预的影响。