“One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Even if you weren’t alive on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong’s famous words as he stepped out of Apollo 11 onto the lunar surface are probably etched into your memory. 

But did Armstrong and his fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin really take man’s first steps onto the moon? Or did they step out into a remote desert or a carefully staged studio here on Earth? 

Conspiracy theories are explanations for events or situations that involve secret, often sinister plots by powerful groups, without solid evidence to support them. Developed and promoted by individuals called ‘conspiracy theorists,’ these theories usually rely on distrust of official accounts and resist contrary evidence. 

Despite video footage of the historic event, a huge amount of scientific data, and third-party evidence, many people still believe that the moon landings were faked as part of a government and NASA conspiracy. And it’s not just a handful of people who subscribe to this theory. In 2019, a survey found that 10% of Americans believed that man never walked on the moon, slightly more than the 6% who held this viewpoint in 1999.^1,31

The arguments put forward by these conspiracy theorists include the fact that the American flag was waving in zero gravity, lights from the ‘studio’ were apparently visible in photos, and the radiation in the atmosphere would have killed the astronauts.¹ The person responsible for planting the seed of doubt in people’s minds was Bill Kaysing, a former employee of the company that helped design rocket engines. In 1976, he self-published a pamphlet called “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle,” laying the foundation for what would become one of the world’s most famous conspiracy theories in history.²

So why would the USA lie about such an important event? The most common belief behind the lunar landing conspiracy theory is that the USA was trying to win the ‘Space Race,’ a Cold War era competition between them and their enemy, Russia. Other theories include NASA’s need to show results in order to receive more funding, and pressure on the space agency to fulfill President J. F. Kennedy's 1961 goal "before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."²

Why Do Conspiracy Theories Exist and Spread?

Moon landings aside, conspiracy theories are a common part of everyday life and often shape people’s worldview. In times of uncertainty or crisis, conspiracy theories can offer a simple explanation for something that feels complicated or unbelievable. Behavioral scientist Jan-Willem van Prooijen and psychologist Karen Douglas argue that conspiracy theories often arise during periods of societal crisis, such as wars, economic crashes, pandemics, and terror attacks.⁴ These situations trigger such beliefs as people try to make sense of events that feel out of their control. Psychologically, conspiracy theories offer a sense of understanding and agency in chaotic situations. While these beliefs may start as coping mechanisms, they can solidify into widely accepted historical narratives that persist even after the crisis ends.

However, conspiracy theories don’t necessarily reduce anxiety. In fact, they can increase feelings of powerlessness and mistrust because they paint a picture of a world being controlled by secretive, powerful, and malevolent forces.

Recent research on conspiracy theories suggests that people who believe in them tend to have a combination of specific personality traits and motivations. These include relying strongly on their intuition, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and perceiving threats in their environment.¹¹ Contrary to what was believed in the mid-20th century, conspiracy theorists are not likely to be simple-minded or paranoid people, but individuals looking to fulfill certain motivations and make sense of stressful situations. 

Other researchers suggest a slightly different theory for why people believe in conspiracy theories. Karen Douglas and her colleagues argue that belief is driven by motives that are characterized as epistemic (understanding one’s environment), existential (being safe and in control of one’s environment), and social (maintaining a positive image of the self and the social group).¹² Yet whether or not conspiracy theories actually fulfill these motivations is still being investigated. 

The reason why conspiracy theories spread and persist within societies is due to cognitive biases, particularly the confirmation bias. This is our tendency to seek out and accept information that confirms what we already believe or would like to be true, and reject anything that goes against this. When we encounter information that challenges our beliefs, it can trigger discomfort, or what’s known as cognitive dissonance. To overcome this imbalance, we tend to double down on what we already believe and feel comfortable with. The brain’s response to opposing views explains why conspiracy theories are so sticky and hard to get rid of.

In one study, three neuroscientists scanned the brains of students with liberal political views using a functional MRI.¹³ They first read out statements the students had previously agreed with, then presented them with opposing evidence. When non-political beliefs were challenged, brain activity stayed calm. But when political beliefs were contradicted, the amygdala lit up—the part of the brain responsible for the fight-or-flight response, similar to how we react to physical danger, like a tiger attack. 

The other cognitive bias that causes us to fall for misinformation and conspiracy theories is black-and-white thinking. This bias causes us to view the world in binary terms, not as a complex, messy, and often confusing place. A good example of how this bias impacts conspiracy theories is the best-selling weight-loss book, Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution. According to the book, all carbs were bad and to be avoided. However, in reality, carbs are more complex and divided into complex, simple, natural, or processed.³² But by making people believe that it was a simple decision between eating or not eating carbs, a conspiracy theory around their harmful impact on our health quickly developed.¹⁴ 

Conspiracy theorists: People who develop, believe in, or promote conspiracy theories.

Confirmation bias: The tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms what we already believe, while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts those beliefs.

Pseudoscience: A set of beliefs, theories, or practices that claim to be scientific but lack the evidence, methods, or rigor required by actual science.

Parapolitics: Political actions, networks, or explanations that operate outside formal or transparent political processes, often involving secrecy, covert operations, or hidden agendas. 

Watergate: A real political conspiracy in the 1970s, where members of President Nixon’s team illegally spied on political opponents and then tried to cover it up. It led to Nixon’s resignation and is often cited as proof that some conspiracy theories are true.

MK-Ultra: A secret CIA program during the Cold War that ran from the 1950s to the 1970s, aimed at developing mind control techniques using drugs like LSD, hypnosis, and psychological torture. Many of the experiments were done without consent, and the program was only exposed in the 1970s through congressional investigations.

COINTELPRO: Short for ‘Counter Intelligence Program,’ COINTELPRO was a covert FBI operation from 1956 to 1971 aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, and disrupting civil rights groups, political activists, and perceived radicals—such as  Martin Luther King Jr., the Black Panthers, and anti-war protesters.

QAnon: A conspiracy theory movement that began online in 2017. It was based on the false belief that a secret group of elites is controlling world events and that a government insider, known as "Q," is leaking clues to the public. It has been widely discredited but gained traction through social media and political channels.

Part 1: The History of Conspiracy Theories 

Conspiracy theories have been prevalent throughout human history.⁴ However, for a long time, academics argued over exactly when conspiracy theories first emerged. Some believed they were as old as humans themselves, while others argued that they appeared during the Enlightenment.⁵ It’s now been established that conspiracy theories first emerged in the early modern times, during the religious wars of the late sixteenth century.⁶ These early conspiracy theories were metaphysical in nature, grounded in the belief that these events were part of a cosmic battle between God and the devil.

When the Puritans crossed the Atlantic and settled in New England in the 1600s, they brought with them their beliefs that they were part of this battle. Everything from storms and diseases to wars and other disasters was attributed to a demonic conspiracy led by Satan to destroy the Puritan colony. One of the earliest examples of this particular conspiracy theory getting out of control is the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690s. The Puritans believed witches were conspiring with the devil to destroy their society, leading to 20 executions, often of people within the same community. 

Conspiracy theories remained in the mainstream for nearly 300 years, influencing events such as the American Revolution and anti-Catholic sentiments during the mid-1880s in the USA. During this time, conspiracy theories were seen as a legitimate, elite-driven political discourse. 

Since the mid-20th century, however, conspiracy theories have actually declined in legitimacy and cultural importance. As a result of academic thinking during this time, conspiracy theories moved from orthodox (mainstream) to heterodox (marginal) knowledge. That is, they persisted in popular culture but were no longer part of official political discourse. Now, they were more often associated with extremist subcultures, such as the John Birch Society. Founded by businessman Robert Welch in the USA in 1958, the society became known for promoting conspiracy theories, especially the belief that communists had infiltrated the U.S. government and other institutions. Although it had tens of thousands of members by the 1960s, it was widely criticized for its extreme views, including the claim that President Eisenhower was part of a communist conspiracy.

However, the internet and social media, which act like echo chambers for conspiracy theories,⁷ are reigniting their influence. We now live in what’s called a ‘post-truth era’ where official knowledge is increasingly contested, facts have lost their weight in political and public debate, and online actors are freely able to weaponize new media to spread pseudoscientific ideas and misinformation.²⁶ The term post-truth became widely used after two major events in 2016: the UK's vote to leave the EU (Brexit) and Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president. In both cases, commentators pointed out that facts seemed to matter less than emotions, with campaigns often using misleading or false claims to win support.³³

A study conducted by Christine Abdalla Mikhaeil and Richard Baskerville identified a four-part process for the spread of conspiracy theories online. First, individuals seek out content that confirms their beliefs (identity confirmation), then they engage with like-minded communities that strengthen those beliefs (identity affirmation). When challenged, they become defensive and reject opposing views (identity protection), and repeated exposure within these echo chambers further entrenches their views (identity reinforcement).¹⁰ As a result, conspiracy theories have come full circle, and now influence public discourse once again. Controversial outlets such as the far-right, fake news outlet ‘Infowars’ can quickly mainstream conspiracy theories and make them appear as political fact.³⁴

The study also notes that traditional responses like fact-checking often fail and can even make people double down on their beliefs. This is due to the confirmation bias and the tendency for people to seek out and believe information that supports what they already think. If they are presented with the real facts and these contradict their already held views, this information is likely to be rejected. 

Part 2: The History of Conspiracy Theory Research 

The history of the study of conspiracy theories begins a lot later, in the 1930s and 1940s, with three main ideas.⁸ Psychologists like Harold Lasswell and Theodor Adorno thought certain personality types—such as aggressive or overly obedient people—were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Sociologists, on the other hand, like Leo Loewenthal and Norbert Guterman, believed these theories came from the stresses of living in modern, fast-changing societies. They also viewed conspiracy thinking as a way for people to make sense of the world, and thought it was important enough to be studied seriously.

However, no one came up with a label for this phenomenon being studied. German philosopher of science, Karl Popper, came a little closer in the late 1940s with what he called ‘the conspiracy theory of society.’ This idea, he claimed, was a simplistic but unscientific way of understanding social relations that had emerged as a reaction to the Enlightenment. 

It wasn’t until the second half of the 20th century that conspiracy theories became a concept. Academic interest in the phenomenon during this time is largely to blame for their demise, principally through Richard Hofstadter’s concept of ‘paranoid style.’ This approach framed conspiracy theorists as fringe, irrational, and dangerous individuals threatening liberal democracy. His ideas had a big impact and have helped shape how the public, media, and academics around the world think about conspiracy theories to this day. Because of him, people often see conspiracy theories and paranoia as closely connected.

Although conspiracy theories themselves were increasingly marginalized towards the end of the 20th century, interest in them among academics became stronger. In the 1990s and 2000s, psychologists began to view the belief in conspiracy theories as a sign of psychological issues or irrational responses to events. Studies during this time explored individual traits such as paranoia, low trust, and anxiety to find out if certain people were more susceptible to believing conspiracy theories than others.^35,36 By 2013, researchers at the University of Goldsmiths in London had developed the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs (GCB) Scale to test individual differences in the tendency to engage with conspiracy theories (known as ‘conspiracist ideation’).⁹

Eventually, the earlier pathologizing approach of Hofstadter was replaced with the belief that conspiracy theories actually reflected deeper cultural anxieties about power, identity, and agency.¹⁵ Conspiracy theories remain an important area of study, both in psychology, where behavioral patterns are explored, and in cultural studies, which seek to understand historical and local specificity.

Bill Kaysing

An American writer best known for being one of the first and most prominent proponents of the conspiracy theory that the Apollo moon landings were faked. He worked as a technical writer for Rocketdyne, a company that helped develop rocket engines for NASA, from 1956 to 1963.

Richard Hofstadter

An influential American historian known for his work on political culture and ideas in the United States. Hofstadter is perhaps best known for his 1964 essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” in which he explored how conspiracy thinking and irrational fear have shaped U.S. political discourse. His work helped define how scholars and the public understand the role of populism, extremism, and paranoia in American history and continues to influence debates today.

Karl Popper

Austrian-British philosopher best known for his work on the philosophy of science. He argued that scientific theories must be falsifiable—able to be proven wrong—to be considered valid. Popper also coined the term “conspiracy theory of society,” criticizing the idea that major events are always caused by secret plots, rather than complex social forces.

While some conspiracy theories might seem harmless or even entertaining (like the moon being made of cheese or pigeons being government drones), others can have real-world consequences. They can erode trust in science, government, and the media, fuel social division, and influence public behavior in harmful ways, like rejecting vaccines or denying climate change. 

COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic is a good example of the harmful consequences of conspiracy theories. Dubbed an “infodemic,” technology, and particularly social media, amplified misinformation and conspiracy theories that jeopardized and undermined the global response to the pandemic.¹⁸  One meta-analysis using data from 23 countries found that conspiracy beliefs were linked to lower support for prevention measures—particularly vaccination and social distancing—but had little to no effect on mask-wearing or hygiene practices.³⁷ Believers were also more likely to support unproven alternative treatments such as chloroquine or vitamin C. As the pandemic progressed, however, the effects of conspiracy theories on people’s health behaviors and compliance increased.

Behavioral Intentions

Research shows that exposure to conspiracy theories influences people’s behavioral intentions—that is, a person's stated plans or willingness to perform a specific behavior in the future.¹⁶ A study by psychologists in Germany found that the relationship between conspiracy theories and behavioral intentions is affected by individual differences in the “need to evaluate,” a personality trait that reflects how much people like to form and hold strong opinions. Across two experimental studies, the researchers found that exposure to conspiracy narratives on climate change and vaccination increased belief in specific conspiracy theories. This, in turn, negatively influenced related behavioral intentions, such as willingness to engage in pro-environmental actions or get vaccinated. Crucially, these effects were stronger among individuals high in “need to evaluate,” suggesting that people who are more evaluative by nature are more likely to translate their conspiracy beliefs into intentions.

From Conspiracy Theorist to Criminal

There’s also some evidence that people who believe in conspiracy theories are more likely to accept or engage in daily criminal activities. A study by researchers at the University of Kent, UK, found that conspiracy beliefs were linked to higher self-reported everyday crime, even when accounting for traits like honesty.³⁸ The experimental study also showed that exposure to conspiracy theories increased future crime intentions by heightening feelings of anomie—a sense that societal norms are breaking down. In short, conspiracy beliefs may not just cause disengagement among individuals, but can actually motivate harmful actions.

Conspiracy theories are, much of the time, controversial. This is particularly the case when people’s lives are at risk, or the experiences of an entire racial group are being denied. However, it’s not just their impact on people and society that’s controversial: it’s also the way we talk about them and their followers. 

The Pathologizing Approach

As we saw earlier, there have been two theories. First is the “Pathologizing” approach, which views conspiracy theorists as flawed, irrational, and potentially dangerous. The second is the “Cultural Significance” approach, which understands conspiracy theories as an integral part of society and how we make sense of and deal with the world around us.

The former, which is still the most dominant in academia and the media, tends to treat conspiracy theories as signs of mental illness, pseudoscience, or dangerous political irrationality. Bojan Baća, a political sociologist from Montenegro, identifies three main stigmas used in the vocabulary around conspiracy theories:²⁶

1. Psychopathology: Describing conspiracy believers as paranoid or mentally ill, ignoring broader social and political contexts.
2. Pseudoscience: Dismissing conspiracy theories as irrational, anti-scientific nonsense that fails basic standards of evidence and logic.
3. Parapolitics: Framing conspiracy theorists as anti-democratic threats to political order, rather than as engaged (if misguided) political actors.

According to Baća, this framing of conspiracy theories is overly simplistic and exclusionary. Rather than helping us to understand why conspiratorial beliefs are so compelling for many people, this kind of language actually marginalizes and delegitimizes those individuals. As a result, society becomes more fragmented and polarized.

As an alternative, Baća proposes a non-pathologizing vocabulary that treats conspiracy theories as meaningful political and social practices. This could include framing conspiracy theories as attempts to make sense of a disorienting world and locate oneself within complex systems (cognitive mapping), or recognizing conspiracy theorizing as a form of grassroots political participation and identity-making (performative citizenship).

Are Conspiracy Theories Irrational?

Another area of contention around conspiracy theories is whether or not they are inherently irrational. Scholars like Matthew Dentith and David Coady argue that some conspiracy theories are plausible or even true (such as Watergate, MK-Ultra, or COINTELPRO), and that dismissing them all as nonsense is intellectually lazy.²⁷ Instead, they argue that we should be engaging with these ideas as part of a healthy curiosity. 

And this brings us to the sticky conundrum of free speech vs. public harm. Who decides what is a conspiracy theory or misinformation and what isn’t? Do conspiracy theorists still have the right to air their views, even if they are potentially harmful? Platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and X have struggled with banning harmful conspiracy theories, particularly during times of crisis, without being accused of censorship.²⁸ However, this is what the public wants. A 2025 global survey conducted by the University of Oxford and the Technical University of Munich revealed that a majority of people support restricting harmful content on social media, such as physical threats and defamation. This is even the case in countries like the U.S., where free speech is highly valued.³⁹

The rise of QAnon

In October 2017, an anonymous user calling themselves “Q” began posting cryptic messages on an internet forum called 4chan.¹⁹ Claiming to be a high-ranking U.S. government official with Q-level security clearance, this mysterious figure alleged that the world was secretly controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshipping paedophiles made up of global elites, Hollywood celebrities, and Democratic politicians. According to “Q,” Donald Trump had been recruited to lead a covert operation to dismantle this obscure group and bring its members to justice in a day of reckoning known as “The Storm.”²⁰

For many people, QAnon quickly became a worldview, a movement, even a kind of faith. According to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), between 2021 and 2024, belief in QAnon among Americans rose from 14% to 23%, while the number of people completely rejecting the movement and its beliefs dropped from 40% to 29%.²¹ Interestingly, data shows that the greater political knowledge someone has, the more likely they are to have heard about the QAnon conspiracy theories.²⁵ This pattern was found on both sides of the political divide. 

Despite zero evidence to support its claims, QAnon gained massive traction online, fueled by viral hashtags, YouTube rabbit holes, and Facebook groups. Eventually, the online fringe movement started to take its conspiracy theories from the internet into real life. QAnon believers began appearing at Trump rallies, running for political office, and even storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, with many wearing Q symbols and chanting slogans drawn from the conspiracy. As Harvard fellow Jesselyn Cook wrote about in her book, The Quiet Damage: QAnon and the Destruction of the American Family²⁴ the emotional and financial toll that QAnon has had on the families of believers has been extensive. On a more violent level, armed standoffs and attempted kidnappings have been linked to QAnon followers, prompting the FBI to classify QAnon as a domestic terrorism threat in 2020.²³

So why did QAnon resonate with so many people? Like other movements based on conspiracy theories, it offered a clear villain, a secret truth, and a promise of justice.²² These aspects were all deeply comforting during times of uncertainty. National and global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, social unrest, and political polarization, only added fuel to the fire.

Climate Change Denial

Some say the world’s getting hotter because we’re killing it with our emissions. Others believe it’s part of nature’s cycle and that we’ve got nothing to do with it. And some would argue that it’s not even getting hotter at all or that we’re overexaggerating its effects. 

These conspiracy theories about climate change have been circling for decades. More modern theories take things a step further—some allege that wind turbines can cause cancer or that environmental regulations will cause severe harm to the economy.³⁰ These claims, while scientifically baseless, gain traction because they tap into broader fears about government control, economic loss, or technological change.

Belief in climate change conspiracy theories is a global phenomenon. However, the prevalence and strength of this belief differ from country to country. One study found that around one in four people in the U.S. and Brazil agreed with the statement “climate change is a hoax,” but in Germany, that number was closer to 10%.²⁹ 

There are, however, consistent global patterns around the profile of these climate change conspiracy theorists. The same study found that climate conspiracy believers tend to be younger, distrust scientists, lean toward right-wing or populist ideologies, and often feel alienated from mainstream institutions. But the exact reasons vary by country. In highly polarized nations like the U.S. and Brazil, political ideology plays a major role in shaping people’s beliefs. In places like Lebanon or South Africa, other factors, such as media environment and public trust, have more influence.

Regardless of their origins or what influences them, climate conspiracy theories all have the same impact: they erode public support for climate action and distract us from the real problem. This can make it harder to pass environmental policies and even fuel resistance to renewable energy projects or conservation efforts. 

Tackling Conspiracy Theories Amid COVID-19

Perhaps one of the most conspiratorial periods of modern times, this article examines the rise of conspiracy theories during the pandemic and their potential harm. The authors look at the psychological factors that make individuals susceptible to such theories, and emphasize the importance of understanding these drivers to effectively address and mitigate the spread of misinformation.​

The Misinformation Mitigation Toolbox: Dismantling the Digital Deceit

If you’re worried about falling victim to a conspiracy theory or misinformation, this article provides simple strategies for you. Celestine Rosales looks at a toolbox of approaches to ‘cut through the noise’, developed by a global team of 30 researchers led by Dr. Anastasia Kozyreva. Ultimately, by using a combination of nudges, boosts, and refutations, we can empower ourselves to become critical consumers of information. 

1. Armstrong, R. L. (July 10, 2019). New Survey Suggests 10% of Americans Believe the Moon Landing Was Fake. Satellite Internet. https://www.satelliteinternet.com/resources/moon-landing-real-survey/
2. Godwin, R. (2019, July 10). One giant… lie? Why do many people still think the moon landings were faked. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/10/one-giant-lie-why-so-many-people-still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked
3. Kennedy, J. F. (May 25, 1961). Special Message to Congress on Urgent National Needs (Motion picture (excerpt)). Boston, MA: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Accession Number: TNC:200; Digital Identifier: TNC-200-2.
4. Van Prooijen, J-W., & Douglas, K. M. (2017). Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations. Memory Studies, 10(3). 
5. Butter, M. (2020). Conspiracy Theories in American History. In Butter, M., & Knight P. (eds., Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. Routledge, 648-659.
6. Coward, B. and Swann, J. (2004). Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe: From the Waldensians to the French Revolution. Aldershot: Ashgate.
7. Merlan, A. (2019). Republic of Lies: American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power. Metropolitan Books.
8. Butter, M., & Knight, P. (2018). The History of Conspiracy Theory Research: A Review and Commentary. In Joseph E. Uscinski (ed.), Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them. New York: Oxford Academic. 
9. Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickerting, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: the generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. 
10. Abdalla Mikhaeil, C., &  Baskerville, R. L. (2024).  Explaining online conspiracy theory radicalization: A second-order affordance for identity-driven escalation. Information Systems Journal,  34(3),  711–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12427
11. Bowes, S. M., Costello, T. H., & Tasimi, A. (2023). The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analysis Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates. APA Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000392
12. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. Current directions in psychological science, 26(6), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
13. Kaplan, J., Gimbel, S. & Harris, S. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Sci Rep 6, 39589. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39589
14. Edmans, A. (2024, April 12). These 2 internal biases cause us to fall for misinformation – here’s why. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/misinformation-confirmation-bias-black-and-white-thinking/
15. Knight, P. (ed.). (2002). Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America. New York: NYU Press. 
16. Mang, V., Epstude, K., Fennis, B. (2024). When do conspiracy theories shape behavioural intentions? The moderating role of the need to evaluate. Personality and Individual Differences, 218. 
17. Jolley, D., Douglas, K. M., Leite, A. C., & Schrader, T. (2019). Belief in conspiracy theories and intentions to engage in everyday crime. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(3), 534-549.
18. UK Research and Innovation. (2024, August 15). Conspiracy Theories and COVID-19. UK Research and Innovation. https://www.ukri.org/who-we-are/how-we-are-doing/research-outcomes-and-impact/ahrc/conspiracy-theories-and-covid-19/
19. Amarasingam, A. & Argentino, M. A. (2020). The QAnon conspiracy theory: A security threat in the making? CTC Sentinel, 13(7), 37–44.
20. Rothschild, M. (2021). The Storm Is Upon Us: How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything. Melville House.
21. PRRI. (2023). Threats to American Democracy Ahead of an Unprecedented Presidential Election. PRRI. https://www.prri.org/research/threats-to-american-democracy-ahead-of-an-unprecedented-presidential-election/
22. LaFrance, A. (2020). The Prophecies of Q. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/qanon-nothing-can-stop-what-is-coming/610567/
23. Argentino, M. A. (2020). QAnon and the storm of the U.S. Capitol: The offline effect of online conspiracy theories. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/qanon-and-the-storm-of-the-us-capitol-the-offline-effect-of-online-conspiracy-theories-152832
24. Cook, J. (2024). The Quiet Damage: QAnon and the Destruction of the American Family.  Crown. 
25. Pew Research Center (2020). 5 facts about the QAnon conspiracy theories. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/16/5-facts-about-the-qanon-conspiracy-theories/
26. Baća, B. (2024). QAnon and the Epistemic Communities of the Unreal: A Conceptual Toolkit for a Sociology of Grassroots Conspiracism. Theory, Culture & Society, 41(4), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764241258404 
27. David Coady (ed.) (2006). Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate. Ashgate Publishing.
28. Kate Klonick (2018). The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech. Harvard Law Review, 131(6), 1598–1670.
29. Stockemar, D., & Bordeleau, J-N. (2024, December 12). Understanding climate change conspiracy beliefs: A comparative outlook. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/understanding-climate-change-conspiracy-beliefs-a-comparative-outlook/
30. Dutch, S. I. (2024). Conspiracy theories of global warming. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/environmental-sciences/conspiracy-theories-global-warming
31. Newport, F. (1999). Landing a Man on the Moon: The Public’s View. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/3712/Landing-Man-Moon-Publics-View.aspx?cl_system=mapi&cl_system_id=58982013-ea65-4495-a912-b1f559436983&clreqid=58982013-ea65-4495-a912-b1f559436983&kbid=149388
32. BBC. (2022, January). Is a low-carb diet right for you? BBC Food. https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/low_carb_diet
33. O'Callaghan, C. (2020). Postpolitics and Post-Truth. In Audrey Kobayashi (Ed), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition). Elsevier, 339-345. 
34. Bond, S. (2022, August 6). How Alex Jones helped mainstream conspiracy theories into American life. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1115936712/how-alex-jones-helped-mainstream-conspiracy-theories-into-american-life
35. Butler, L. D., Koopman, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychological impact of viewing the film “JFK”: Emotions, beliefs, and political behavioral intentions. Political Psychology, 16(2), 237–257.
36. Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96(3), 109–126.
37. Bierwiaczonek, K., Gundersen,A., B., & Kunst, J. R. (2022). The role of conspiracy beliefs for COVID-19 health responses: A meta-analysis. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46.
38. Jolley, D., Douglas, K. M., Leite, A. C., & Schrader, T. (2019). Belief in conspiracy theories and intentions to engage in everyday crime. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(3), 534-549. 
39. University of Oxford. (2025, February 12). Majority support moderation on social media platforms, global survey shows. University of Oxford. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-02-12-majority-support-moderation-social-media-platforms-global-survey-shows?utm_source=chatgpt.com