Conspiracy theories explained by a cheating detection mechanism

International audienceResearch on conspiracy theories sometimes tends to pathologise this phenomenon with a focus on the impact of (sub)pathological predictors. However, socio‐political factors also play a significant role in predicting belief in specific conspiracy theories. The aim of this article is to bridge these two perspectives through a unified cognitive mechanism. Based on an overlap between cheating and conspiracy concepts, we assume a cheating detection mechanism likely to underlie belief in conspiracy theories. Starting from the adaptive challenges of cheating detection, we explore the workings of this mechanism using signal detection theory and error management theory. The probability of cheating and decision bias according to the asymmetry of error costs in cheating detection could lead individuals to infer conspiracy theories. This functional mechanism not only explains the links between socio‐political predictors and adherence to conspiracy theories but also helps us deduce alterations that may foster a stable inclination towards believing in conspiracy theories. These alterations, in turn, offer an explanation for the links between (sub)pathological predictors and conspiracy mentality. By integrating existing literature, our proposed model sheds light on the mechanisms underlying belief in conspiracy theories and presents new predictions to guide future research

Expectation violation and cognitive dissonance theory: Proposal for an epistemic inconsistency management model

International audienceA crucial dilemma for any individual facing contradictory information is whether to maintain or disengage from an expectation. Cognitive dissonance theory offers an influential model of these situations. However, this theory does not provide clear predictions regarding the use of reduction strategies (methods used to resolve inconsistency) and their consequences. We propose a decision rule and parameters to model decisions faced by individuals who encounter epistemic inconsistency. Inconsistency leads individuals to assess the probabilities and costs associated with the error of disengaging from a correct expectation and the error of maintaining an incorrect expectation. Depending on these assessments, individuals opt for a reduction strategy allowing for maintenance of or disengagement from the expectation. We propose a categorization of reduction strategies derived from this process and oriented towards the explanation of expectation bolstering, contributing to the understanding of radicalization. This model offers new predictions and avenues for empirical work

Assessing Student Attitudes towards Potential Counter-Attitudinal Essay Topics

Attitude/topic measures pre-tested for the RRR Cognitive dissonance in several universities. For now, the best way to inspect the data is by using the Shiny app. Either download the shiny-app.r script and the prepared-data.csv file, or go to https://willemsleegers.shinyapps.io/essay-topic-pretest/ to see the web hosted Shiny app

A multilab replication of the induced-compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance

According to cognitive-dissonance theory, performing counterattitudinal behavior produces a state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve, usually by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior. One of the most popular experimental paradigms used to produce such attitude change is the induced-compliance paradigm. Despite its popularity, the replication crisis in social psychology and other fields, as well as methodological limitations associated with the paradigm, raise concerns about the robustness of classic studies in this literature. We therefore conducted a multilab constructive replication of the induced-compliance paradigm based on Croyle and Cooper (Experiment 1). In a total of 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages, participants (N = 4,898) were assigned to one of three conditions: writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice, writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice, or writing a neutral essay under high choice. The primary analyses failed to support the core hypothesis: No significant difference in attitude was observed after writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice compared with low choice. However, we did observe a significant difference in attitude after writing a counterattitudinal essay compared with writing a neutral essay. Secondary analyses revealed the pattern of results to be robust to data exclusions, lab variability, and attitude assessment. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to test predictions from cognitive-dissonance theory. Overall, the results call into question whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance

A Multilab Replication of the Induced-Compliance Paradigm of Cognitive Dissonance

According to cognitive-dissonance theory, performing counterattitudinal behavior produces a state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve, usually by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior. One of the most popular experimental paradigms used to produce such attitude change is the induced-compliance paradigm. Despite its popularity, the replication crisis in social psychology and other fields, as well as methodological limitations associated with the paradigm, raise concerns about the robustness of classic studies in this literature. We therefore conducted a multilab constructive replication of the induced-compliance paradigm based on Croyle and Cooper (Experiment 1). In a total of 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages, participants (N = 4,898) were assigned to one of three conditions: writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice, writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice, or writing a neutral essay under high choice. The primary analyses failed to support the core hypothesis: No significant difference in attitude was observed after writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice compared with low choice. However, we did observe a significant difference in attitude after writing a counterattitudinal essay compared with writing a neutral essay. Secondary analyses revealed the pattern of results to be robust to data exclusions, lab variability, and attitude assessment. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to test predictions from cognitive-dissonancetheory. Overall, the results call into question whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance