The entertainment value of conspiracy theories

Abstract

Many citizens around the globe believe conspiracy theories. Why are conspiracy theories so appealing? Here, we propose that conspiracy theories elicit intense emotions independent of emotional valence. People therefore find conspiracy theories entertaining that is, narratives that people perceive as interesting, exciting, and attention-grabbingand such entertainment appraisals are positively associated with belief in them. Five studies supported these ideas. Participants were exposed to either a conspiratorial or a non-conspiratorial text about the Notre Dame fire (Study 1) or the death of Jeffrey Epstein (preregistered Study 2). The conspiratorial text elicited stronger entertainment appraisals and intense emotions (independent of emotional valence) than the nonconspiratorial text; moreover, entertainment appraisals mediated the effects of the manipulation on conspiracy beliefs. Study 3 indicated that participants endorsed stronger conspiracy beliefs when an election event was described in an entertaining rather than a boring manner. Subsequent findings revealed that both organisational (Study 4) and societal conspiracy beliefs (Study 5) are positively associated with sensation seekinga trait characterised by a preference for exciting and intense experiences. We conclude that one reason why people believe conspiracy theories is because they find them entertaining.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

To Convince, to Provoke or to Entertain? A Study on Individual Motivations behind Engaging with Conspiracy Theories Online

“…People experience conspiracy theories as fascinating and exciting. Thus, they can spark intense (positive) emotions, which can predict the belief in and the appeal of conspiracy theories (van Prooijen et al, 2021). Literature on misinformation sharing further suggests that perceived entertainment increases the likeliness to disseminate the false and misleading information (Islam et al, 2020;Metzger et al, 2021).…”

“…Against this backdrop, we claim that perceived entertainment plays a central role why individuals would disseminate conspiracy theories. Individuals do not only experience conspiracy theories as potentially harmful or misleading, but can also perceive them as funny and entertaining (Daniel and Harper, 2020; Van Prooijen et al, 2021). van Prooijen et al (2021) observed that the triggered entertainment value through conspiracy theories fosters the belief in them.…”

“…Individuals do not only experience conspiracy theories as potentially harmful or misleading, but can also perceive them as funny and entertaining (Daniel and Harper, 2020; Van Prooijen et al, 2021). van Prooijen et al (2021) observed that the triggered entertainment value through conspiracy theories fosters the belief in them. People experience conspiracy theories as fascinating and exciting.…”

Authoritarian Leaders Share Conspiracy Theories to Attack Opponents, Promote In-Group Unity, Shift Blame, and Undermine Democratic Institutions

“…By attacking rivals, leaders elicit intense emotions, such as anger and outrage (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). This may prevent followers from engaging in deliberative processing, causing them to be more vulnerable to believing myths that discredit the integrity or stature of opponents (van Prooijen et al, 2022;Kahneman, 2011). As such, followers are more likely to undermine opponents or even take aggressive action against them without scrutinizing the ethics of their leader's agenda.…”

Who Will Help to Strive Against the “Infodemic”? Reciprocity Norms Enforce the Information Sharing Accuracy of the Individuals

“…( Acerbi, 2019 ). Some studies have found that there are individuals in society who simply desire chaos, they “want to see the world burn down” ( Arceneaux et al, 2021 ), and thus are more inclined to share uncertain information such as “conspiracy theories” ( Douglas et al, 2017 ; Bratu, 2020 ; Sheares et al, 2020 ; Prooijen et al, 2022 ).…”