When presented with the phrase “conspiracy theory” a common scene brought to mind in today’s society is likely of a dimly lit Youtuber only partially seriously explaining an illogical joke of a conspiracy theory. Just like the occasional skeptic in the comment section of a conspiracy based, the vocal portion of the general public often right off most to all theories as nonsense existing purely for entertainment or the “crazies” of society. Indulging in a stereotypical outlook of conspiracy theories ignores two crucial aspects of theorists and their theories. The people who believe in conspiracy theories are statistically the majority rather than the abnormal minority they are often perceived to be. “Research from the University of Chicago indicates that at least 50 percent of Americans believe in at least one conspiracy theory.” (Vedantam). An important conclusion multiple studies have come to is conspiracy theorist each exhibit similar types of common personality characteristics. Since conspiracy theories are a fast-growing aspect of current society affecting everything from politics to personal health practices understanding the people and logical behind them is essential to protect the unaware and keeping pace with the changing social attitudes.  Based on the conclusions of psychology studies as well as real life examples, conspiracy theorists are not unstable anomalies in society but rather average people whose personality traits interact in a manner causing them to be more susceptible to against the status quo information which allows them to impact the world around them in meaningful ways.

In order to fully understand the motivation behind the belief in conspiracy theories it is important to first recognize what is not a motivator.  In his article, Sander Linden creates a narrative of the belief in conspiracy theories are based around the rejection of science. “Yet there is something fundamentally dangerous and unscientific about the nature of conspiracy theorizing” (Linden). Without citing a source, he states, “Other recent research has shown that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with the motivated rejection of science, i.e., denial of the other established scientific facts such as the link between HIV and AIDS, or between smoking and lung cancer.” (Linden). Both statements from Sander’s article fail to acknowledge three realities of conspiracy theories. The majority of conspiracy theories and the most commonly discussed theories focus on mysteries and people’s emotions rather than debating science. Secondly, because theories are generally about mystery and emotion the evidence presented is usually physical such as photos or firsthand accounts. Any scientific evidence presented generally falls under the universally accepted fields such as ballistics or forensics which would indicate believers would need to understand and accept science rather than deny it. Even theorist armed to the max with evidence and logic would be dismissed under Dr. Linden’s line of thinking. The theorist challenging the view on a generally accepted information or event would be written off as denial of current logic rather than valid criticism. To operate under the assumption of science being fact with no question is to disregard the unofficial rule of science. No theory or fact can be proven, only disproven.  Finally, Dr. Linden completely disregards those in the scientific community who find themselves believing in conspiracy theories without any issue in the quality of their work or belief in the work.

To make a blanket statement about those who believe in theories outside the norm does not make sense as anyone from blue collar workers to white collar workers can be under the same personality umbrella. What a person’s social standing is cannot be an indicator because each personality lands on a different place on the scale for each of the traits from the scientifically backed personality, theory known in psychology as “The Big Five Model of Personality”. The Big Five Model of Personality theory is one of the commonly accepted methods of understanding personality in the psychology community. As stated by the Big Five theory there are five main traits of personality with each person landing somewhere on the scale for each trait. (Lilienfeld). Each trait is used to explain different aspects of personality. Extraversion is used to explain a person’s willingness to be socially active while placement on the scale of neuroticism is used as a measure of negative emotional tendencies or “moodiness”. Rating high on the conscientiousness scale indicates a person who is responsible and careful while one who rates high on the agreeableness scale are people who tend to be easy to get along with.  The last of the five traits, one referred to as “openness to experience” is important to look at when identifying the characteristics of conspiracy theorists. The variety in placement on the openness scale means each place has a different level of susceptibility. Placement on the scale indicates a person’s personality is the main factor in determining how inclined a person is to believe information outside of what is widely accepted to be fact. After understanding the information on personalities and examining where a person falls in the openness to experience trait an explanation emerges as to why even scientific or logic based people are often members of the conspiracy theory community.

For those who do not believe in conspiracy theories even the most common or thoroughly explained theory can appear outlandish and alienating.  Due to an inability to join the herd it becomes easy to label those they encounter from the group as isolated anomalies in order to feel as though they are not missing out. The reality is people on both sides of the conspiracy line are going through life with the same underlying goal: to find and be secure with a community to belong to. In his article, Tom Jacobs explains how such a need coupled with one’s self-esteem can lead to belief in conspiracy theories.  “The research looks at two elements that have been cited as playing a role in conspiracy beliefs: unstable self-esteem (the uncomfortable state of feeling unsure about one's abilities, attitudes, or value to society), and a strong sense of belongingness (which leads to intense identification with some social group).” (Jacobs). Issues with self-esteem and the intense sense of belonging to a community create the breeding grounds for large scale paranoid. Large scale paranoid is the fear of someone or group existing with the intent to hurt one’s society. Fear without cause does not translate well to the public which creates the need to explain why there should be a distrust of the offending group or person. The explanations created are what is commonly referred to as conspiracy theories.

In relation to other countries the United States as a whole have lower reported self-esteem likely due to the country being an individualism society as opposed to collectivism societies (Lilienfeld). From the generalization one portion of the explanation as to why belief in conspiracy theories have become commonplace in the United States becomes clear. Without a strong sense of self-esteem, a person is less likely to resist outside influences which could be considered abnormal. A lack of self-esteem also encourages individuals to seek out the easiest and most welcoming community to join without deeply analyzing the potential future ramifications of their beliefs. Once a group has been found and the individual becomes an active member the strong sense of belonging mentioned by Jacobs is an almost inevitable follow up.

Each conspiracy focuses on a different issue, often a traumatic historical event, with a theory or information too specific to the conspiracy to be applied verbatim to another. Due to blockage of transferability, the common research method of lab testing a theory then applying the test to real world situations does not suit conspiracy theory research. Therefore, the research of conspiracy theories is a good opportunity to employ the case study technique. Caitlin Shure uses the case study method when evaluating several common conspiracy theories and the people who believe in them in her article titled “Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists.” As has been the common theme among the evaluators of conspiracy theorist personalities, Shure comes to the conclusion early on in her piece that across the board conspiracy theorist are the same at heart. “Research reveals that conspiracy theorists tend to share a core set of traits, regardless of their conspiracy of choice.” (Shure). These aspects are largely influential in how an individual interacts with and understands the world as well as explains what kinds of communities different people will be attracted to. Shure then goes on to provide examples in the form of short explanations of case studies done on specific conspiracies. Although some of the conspiracies are vastly different from each other, the common thread found in the evaluation of each theory’s subscribers is fear and low self-esteem.

The reasoning behind why large-scale conspiracy theories show up during historical moments can also be explained by the same fear and uncertainty cited by Shure. In his article in the Medical Daily, Steve Smith seconds Shure’s theory. “Conspiracy theories tend to show up during uncertain and fearful times, such as after a terrorist attack, a high-profile death, or an unnatural disaster.” (Smith). In uncertain moments conspiracies can become an opportunity for those with political agendas to manipulate a large group of people unbeknownst to them. Fear mongering is a common political tactic used to motivate an otherwise average community into firmly backing a usually polarizing issue. Creating or encouraging a conspiracy theory portraying another government or powerful group of people as the instigator or villain in a theory is an effective and less obvious example of fear mongering. With the increase in conspiracy theories affecting the choices individuals make in their everyday lives making believers aware of the potential abuse of the community is essential.  

When provided with the idea that modern society could be influenced by the likes of a conspiracy theory an antagonistic audience might argue the idea is only theoretical and does not apply to the real world. To dispel this argument a simple political conspiracy and effect example can be used. The political world can and often do use a conspiracy theory to plant seeds of distrust or flat out disgust towards a rival candidate. In the 2016 United States presidential election potential voters turn away from Hilary Clinton due in part to the conspiracy known as Pizzagate. Pizzagate’s claim to fame was that high-ranking officials in the United States government, particularly Hilary Clinton, are running a child sex trafficking rink through a few pizzerias in the District of Columbia. Although this theory seems farfetched, it created suspicion and distrust around the presidential candidate making it easier for potential voters to begin leaning towards her opposition. Unfortunately for Clinton, this was not the only conspiracy to lead to her downfall. Prior to running for president, Hilary Clinton was the Secretary of State during which time her official email practices did not necessarily follow the guidelines. Once this information became public many Americans openly admitted they believed Hilary was attempting to cover up information causing them to believe she was not a competent candidate.

Perhaps one of the longest running conspiracy theories to affect how individuals interact with the world is in the medical world. The conspiracy theory surrounding childhood vaccines states that childhood vaccines are both unnecessary and cause autism and learning disorders. Although science has proven the benefits outweigh any perceived risks and has shown that current vaccinations are almost entirely safe, a large portion of parents are opting to not vaccinate their children. “Therefore, overall, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories appear to introduce undue suspicion about vaccine safety, and increase feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment, whilst decreasing trust in authorities, which in turn introduce reluctance to vaccinate” (Jolly). Parents who chose to believe in this conspiracy do not represent the majority of the conspiracy theory community as this conspiracy is based around a misunderstanding of the science behind learning disorders and vaccines. Most conspiracy theories are either speculation of the contents of the universe and how that has come to alter the known world, or the theory is a critical view of governments, organizations and their motives. Even though antivaccination conspiracy may be an abnormality in the conspiracy theory community it is still often used as the defining theory used to dismiss the community. This refusal to properly address the effects a conspiracy can have has create the ideal setting for the theory to take hold over the public. Ignoring the theory has allowed suspicion and pseudoscience to begin to influence more people leading to an unfortunate example of the dangerous effects conspiracy theories can have. 

Conspiracy theories are not only found on a large scale societal level but also in the everyday life of the average worker. Conspiracy suspicion in the workplace is known as organizational conspiracy theories. “We define organizational conspiracy theories as notions that powerful groups (e.g., managers) within the workplace are acting in secret to achieve some kind of malevolent objective.” (Douglas). From the definition, a new starting place for where interest in conspiracy theories develops can be seen. Small amounts of confusion or discomfort with one’s own situation can often be the breeding ground for more a dramatic response to how the world works. “Specifically, in situations where workers lack control (e.g., have little responsibility, or little control over their duties) or under conditions of uncertainty (e.g., new management, concern about the motives of managers), organizational conspiracy theories may prosper.” (Douglas). If when looking at their personal world a person can find a conspiracy against them as a seemingly logical explanation for an unfortunate situation they are in then beginning to see similar situations on a large scale would be less of a stretch.  

Conspiracies change the way their believers view the world and how they interact which ultimately affects society in either a positive or negative way depending on the conspiracy.  The conspiracy cause and effect cycle can be capitalized on by those with political agendas creating a new channel for propaganda to enter the everyday lives of a population. In order to prevent the negative effect of conspiracies understanding the otherwise average people who chose to immerse themselves into conspiracy theories well as why they gravitate towards the communities is a necessary step. Conspiracy theories do not discriminate when attracting the attention and support of a variety of people due to the core traits of a conspiracy theorist being present in all different types of lifestyles. Although believers in conspiracy theories are fast becoming the majority in current society, precedent often labels the up and coming culture as abnormal without considering the potential consequence of dismissing the communities critique of the known world without stopping to understand and weigh the validity of their position. When taking each trait and consequence into careful consideration a need for reevaluation and action comes into view. Questioning the actions and events occurring in both the small-scale worlds of individuals as well as the large scale historical moments especially during times of uncertainty, is the only way to both find the true motivation behind them and minimize the negative effects which might occur if left unchecked.