编辑“陰謀論”

{{not|阴谋|宿命论|决定论|都市传说}}
{{otheruse|阴谋理论}}
{{Expand language|1=de|status=yes|time=2022-05-07T01:45:22+00:00}}
{{NoteTA
|1=zh-hans:刺杀肯尼迪; zh-hk:JFK驚天大刺殺; zh-tw:誰殺了甘迺迪;
|2=zh-hans:肯尼迪遇刺案; zh-hk:甘迺迪遇刺案; zh-tw:甘迺迪遇刺案;
|3=zh-hans:肯尼迪; zh-hant:甘迺迪;
|4=zh-hans:尼克松; zh-tw:尼克森; zh-hk:尼克遜;
|5=zh-tw:美國國家航空航天局; zh-hk:美國太空總署;
|6=zh-tw:影片;zh-hk:影片;zh-cn:视频;zh-mo:影片;zh-sg:视频;
}}
[[File:Dollarnote siegel hq.jpg|thumb|一些人認為一美元紙幣上的[[上帝之眼]]（或全視之眼）是[[美國開國元勛]]與[[光明會]]有關的陰謀證據<ref name=Barkun2003/>{{rp|58}}<ref>{{cite book|first1=Micah|last1=Issitt|first2=Carlyn|last2=Main|title=Hidden Religion: The Greatest Mysteries and Symbols of the World's Religious Beliefs|publisher=ABC-CLIO|year=2014|isbn=978-1-61069-478-0}}</ref>{{rp|47–49}}]]
'''陰謀論'''（{{lang-en|Conspiracy theory}}），是指[[奥卡姆剃刀|在其他解釋更有可能的情況下]]<ref name="BrothertonFrench2013">{{cite journal|last1=Brotherton|first1=Robert|last2=French|first2=Christopher C.|last3=Pickering|first3=Alan D.|title=Measuring Belief in Conspiracy Theories: The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=4|year=2013|page=279|issn=1664-1078|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279|pmid=23734136|pmc=3659314| quote=A conspiracist belief can be described as 'the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable'.}}</ref><ref name="probability">其他來源：
*{{cite book |last1=Aaronovitch |first1=David |title=Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History |date=2009 |publisher=Jonathan Cape |isbn=9780224074704 |page=253 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=icxkMJK-WmgC |access-date=2019-08-17 |quote=It is a contention of this book that conspiracy theorists fail to apply the principle of Occam's razor to their arguments. |archive-date=2021-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211101091728/https://books.google.com/books?id=icxkMJK-WmgC |dead-url=no }}
*{{cite journal|last1=Brotherton|first1=Robert|last2=French|first2=Christopher C.|title=Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|volume=28|issue=2|year=2014|pages=238–248|issn=0888-4080|doi=10.1002/acp.2995| quote=A conspiracy theory can be defined as an unverified and relatively implausible allegation of conspiracy, claiming that significant events are the result of a secret plot carried out by a preternaturally sinister and powerful group of people.}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Jonason |first1=Peter Karl |last2=March |first2=Evita |last3=Springer |first3=Jordan |title=Belief in conspiracy theories: The predictive role of schizotypy, Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=14 |issue=12 |year=2019 |pages=e0225964 |issn=1932-6203 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0225964 |pmid=31794581 |pmc=6890261 |bibcode=2019PLoSO..1425964M |quote=Conspiracy theories are a subset of false beliefs, and generally implicate a malevolent force (e.g., a government body or secret society) involved in orchestrating major events or providing misinformation regarding the details of events to an unwitting public, in part of a plot towards achieving a sinister goal.}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Thresher-Andrews |first1=Christopher |title=An introduction into the world of conspiracy |journal=PsyPAG Quarterly |volume=88 |year=2013 |pages=5–8 |url=http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |quote=Conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated, less plausible alternatives to the mainstream explanation of the event; they assume everything is intended, with malignity. Crucially, they are also epistemically self-insulating in their construction and arguments. |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2015-08-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813062541/http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |dead-url=no }}</ref>，將事件或現實情況解釋成邪惡而又強力的集團在背後[[陰謀|密謀]]的[[理論]]，這些理論一般由於缺乏更多可靠的證據而[[不可證偽]]，並且[[邏輯]]上可能是[[自洽]]的，因此可能有相當多的信眾，並且認為實施陰謀的行為者基於政治動機會打壓陰謀論者的言論<ref>{{cite journal|title=Belief in conspiracy theories|url=https://archive.org/details/sim_political-psychology_1994-12_15_4/page/731|first1=T|last1=Goertzel|date=December 1994|journal=Political Psychology|volume=15|issue=4|pages=731–742|doi=10.2307/3791630|jstor=3791630}} ''"explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups"''</ref><ref>{{Cite OED |conspiracy theory}} ''"the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; ''spec''. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event"''</ref><ref>茆家焱, 郭永玉, and 杨沈龙. "阴谋论信念的产生机制——社会认知视角的三种解释." 心理科学 44.1 (2021): 169-176.</ref><ref>Biddlestone, M., Green, R., Cichocka, A., Sutton, R., & Douglas, K. (2021). Conspiracy beliefs and the individual, relational, and collective selves. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(10), e12639.</ref>。

陰謀理論的支持者被稱為陰謀論者，此一用詞一般[[貶義詞|具有負面意味]]，因為陰謀理論是支持者可能是靠著[[偏見]]或不充分的證據去將事件是原因訴諸陰謀<ref name=Byford>{{Cite book |title=Conspiracy theories : a critical introduction |url=https://archive.org/details/conspiracytheori0000byfo |last=Byford |first=Jovan |date=2011 |publisher=[[帕爾格雷夫·麥米倫|Palgrave Macmillan]] |isbn=9780230349216 |location=Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire |oclc=802867724}}</ref>。

陰謀論並不等同陰謀；前者指的是具有若干特質的假說。比如它們總是與有資格評價其準確性者（像是科學家或歷史學家）的主流共識唱反調<ref name="Andrade2020"/><ref name="Barkun2016"/><ref name="Brotherton2013-q"/>。

阴谋论欠缺[[可否證性]]，並靠著[[循環論證]]強化論點：不論是反對陰謀論的證據，還是實質證據欠奉，都能被陰謀論者視為支持其想法的證據<ref name="Byford" /><ref name="Keeley1999">{{Cite journal |last=Keeley |first=Brian L. |date=1999 |title=Of Conspiracy Theories |journal=The Journal of Philosophy |volume=96 |issue=3 |pages=109–126 |doi=10.2307/2564659|jstor=2564659 }}</ref>，致使其成為了信念問題，並不能夠證明或反駁<ref name="Barkun2003">{{cite book|last1=Barkun|first1=Michael|title=A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America|url=https://archive.org/details/cultureconspirac00bark_286|date=2003|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley|pages=[https://archive.org/details/cultureconspirac00bark_286/page/n15 3]–4|ref=harv }}</ref><ref name="Barkun2011">{{cite book|last1=Barkun|first1=Michael|title=Chasing Phantoms: Reality, Imagination, and Homeland Security Since 9/11|url=https://archive.org/details/chasingphantomsr11bark_755|date=2011|publisher=University of North Carolina Press|location=Chapel Hill|page=[https://archive.org/details/chasingphantomsr11bark_755/page/n30 10]}}</ref>。研究顯示相信陰謀論可能對心理有害，或可視作一種病态<ref name="Freeman 595–604">{{Cite journal|last1=Freeman|first1=Daniel|last2=Bentall|first2=Richard P.|date=2017-03-29|title=The concomitants of conspiracy concerns|journal=Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology|language=en|volume=52|issue=5|pages=595–604|doi=10.1007/s00127-017-1354-4|issn=0933-7954|pmc=5423964|pmid=28352955}}</ref><ref name="Barron 156–159">{{Cite journal|last1=Barron|first1=David|last2=Morgan|first2=Kevin|last3=Towell|first3=Tony|last4=Altemeyer|first4=Boris|last5=Swami|first5=Viren|date=2014|title=Associations between schizotypy and belief in conspiracist ideation|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|language=en|volume=70|pages=156–159|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.040|url=http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/14570/1/1-s2.0-S0191886914003821-main.pdf}}</ref>。它跟[[投射|心理投射]]、[[偏執狂]]、[[馬基雅維利主義 (心理學)|馬基雅維利主義]]有關<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Douglas|first1=Karen M.|last2=Sutton|first2=Robbie M.|date=2011-04-12|title=Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire|url=http://kar.kent.ac.uk/26187/1/Douglas%20%26%20Sutton%202011%20BJSP.pdf|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|volume=10|issue=3|pages=544–552|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x|pmid=21486312|access-date=2018-12-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181103180834/https://kar.kent.ac.uk/26187/1/Douglas%20%26%20Sutton%202011%20BJSP.pdf|archive-date=2018-11-03|deadurl=no}}</ref>。心理学家认为，虚幻的模式认知會使人們在沒有陰謀的地方「發現」陰謀<ref>{{cite web|last=Dean|first=Signe|date=2017-10-23|title=Conspiracy Theorists Really Do See The World Differently, New Study Shows|url=https://www.sciencealert.com/conspiracy-theory-beliefs-illusory-pattern-perception-cognitive-science|access-date=2020-06-17|publisher=Science Alert|archive-date=2020-07-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200705080258/https://www.sciencealert.com/conspiracy-theory-beliefs-illusory-pattern-perception-cognitive-science|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Sloat|first=Sarah|date=2017-10-17|title=Conspiracy Theorists Have a Fundamental Cognitive Problem, Say Scientists|url=https://www.inverse.com/article/37463-conspiracy-beliefs-illusory-pattern-perception|access-date=2020-06-17|publisher=Inverse|archive-date=2020-06-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617160019/https://www.inverse.com/article/37463-conspiracy-beliefs-illusory-pattern-perception|dead-url=no}}</ref>。不過，目前的[[科學共識]]認為大多陰謀論者並不具有病態特徵，因為有關[[認知]]取向（比如{{link-en|施事者偵測|Agent detection}}、[[焦虑]]反應）可能與經[[演化心理學|演化]]產生的人類[[神經系統]]有一定關係<ref name="Andrade2020">{{cite journal |last=Andrade |first=Gabriel |year=2020 |title=Medical conspiracy theories: Cognitive science and implications for ethics |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11019-020-09951-6.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy |publisher=Springer on behalf of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=505–518 |doi=10.1007/s11019-020-09951-6 |issn=1572-8633 |pmc=7161434 |pmid=32301040 |s2cid=215787658 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200508193924/https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11019-020-09951-6.pdf |archive-date=2020-05-08 |access-date=2021-10-07}}</ref>。

陰謀論在歷史上跟[[偏見]]、[[獵巫]]、[[战争]]、[[种族灭绝]]存有密切關係<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019">{{cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=Karen M. |last2=Uscinski |first2=Joseph E. |last3=Sutton |first3=Robbie M. |last4=Cichocka |first4=Aleksandra |last5=Nefes |first5=Turkay |last6=Ang |first6=Chee Siang |last7=Deravi |first7=Farzin |title=Understanding Conspiracy Theories |journal=Political Psychology |volume=40 |issue=S1 |year=2019 |pages=3–35 |issn=0162-895X |doi=10.1111/pops.12568}}</ref><ref name="Goertzel2010">{{cite journal|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ted|title=Conspiracy theories in science|journal=EMBO Reports|volume=11|issue=7|year=2010|pages=493–499|issn=1469-221X|doi=10.1038/embor.2010.84|pmid=20539311|pmc=2897118}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Handbook of Conspiracy Theory and Contemporary Religion |date=2018 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-38202-2 |language=en |last1=Nefes |first1=Turkay |pages=407–422 |chapter=Framing of a Conspiracy Theory: The Efendi Series|quote=Conspiracy theories often function as popular conduits of ethno-religious hatred and conflict.}}</ref>。[[恐怖袭击]]的肇事者往往对陰謀論深信不疑。[[提摩太·占士·麥克維|提摩太·麥克維]]、[[安德斯·贝林·布雷维克|安德斯·布雷维克]]，乃至[[納粹德國]]、[[斯大林]]治下的[[苏联]]、[[埃尔多安]]治下的土耳其等政府都以陰謀論去合理化自己的行為<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Göknar |first1=Erdağ |title=Conspiracy Theory in Turkey: Politics and Protest in the Age of "Post-Truth" by Julian de Medeiros (review) |journal=The Middle East Journal |date=2019 |volume=73 |issue=2 |pages=336–337 |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/730239 |language=en |issn=1940-3461 |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2021-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211104212946/https://muse.jhu.edu/article/730239 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。[[姆贝基]]治理下的[[南非]]政府在陰謀論的推動下進行了[[艾滋病重估运动]]，導致約330,000人因艾滋病而死<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013">{{cite journal |last1=Thresher-Andrews |first1=Christopher |title=An introduction into the world of conspiracy |journal=PsyPAG Quarterly |volume=88 |year=2013 |pages=5–8 |url=http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2015-08-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813062541/http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |dead-url=no }}</ref><ref name="SimelelaVenter2015">{{cite journal |last1=Simelela |first1=Nono |last2=Venter |first2=W. D. Francois |last3=Pillay |first3=Yogan |last4=Barron |first4=Peter |title=A Political and Social History of HIV in South Africa |journal=Current HIV/AIDS Reports |volume=12 |issue=2 |year=2015 |pages=256–261 |issn=1548-3568 |doi=10.1007/s11904-015-0259-7|pmid=25929959  }}</ref><ref name="BurtonGiddy2015">{{cite journal |last1=Burton |first1=Rosie |last2=Giddy |first2=Janet |last3=Stinson |first3=Kathryn |title=Prevention of mother-to-child transmission in South Africa: an ever-changing landscape |journal=Obstetric Medicine |volume=8 |issue=1 |year=2015 |pages=5–12 |issn=1753-495X |doi=10.1177/1753495X15570994|pmid=27512452 |pmc=4934997 }}</ref>。與[[2020年美國總統選舉]]結果有關的陰謀論致使人們[[2021年美国国会大厦遭冲击事件|冲击美国国会大厦]]<ref>{{cite web|title=QAnon Capitol Siege Trump|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/qanon-capitol-siege-trump/|date=2021-01-13|work=The Washington Post|access-date=2021-02-22|archive-date=2021-03-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210311121234/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/qanon-capitol-siege-trump/|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref name="Nature 2021">{{cite magazine |last=Tollefson |first=Jeff |date=2021-02-04 |title=Tracking QAnon: how Trump turned conspiracy-theory research upside down |url=https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-021-00257-y/d41586-021-00257-y.pdf |url-status=live |format=PDF |magazine=Nature |volume=590 |pages=192–193 |publisher=Nature Research |doi=10.1038/d41586-021-00257-y |issn=1476-4687 |lccn=12037118 |pmid=33542489 |s2cid=231818589 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427105931/https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-021-00257-y/d41586-021-00257-y.pdf |archive-date=2021-04-27 |access-date=2021-10-07}}</ref><ref name="Crossley 2021">{{cite journal |last=Crossley |first=James |date=2021 |title=The Apocalypse and Political Discourse in an Age of COVID |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0142064X211025464 |url-status=live |format=PDF |journal=[[Journal for the Study of the New Testament]] |publisher=SAGE Publications |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=93–111 |doi=10.1177/0142064X211025464 |issn=1745-5294  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211005131143/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0142064X211025464 |archive-date=2021-10-05 |access-date=2021-10-13}}</ref>。[[赞比亚]]政府因相信转基因食品阴谋论，而在[[饥荒]]期間拒绝粮食援助<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>——当时赞比亚有300万人在挨饿<ref name="BrossardShanahan2007">{{cite book|author1=Dominique Brossard|author2=James Shanahan|author3=T. Clint Nesbitt|title=The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dq1frsw9alkC|year=2007|publisher=CABI|isbn=978-1-84593-204-6|pages=343, 353|access-date=2020-12-19|archive-date=2020-12-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201226022738/https://books.google.com/books?id=dq1frsw9alkC|dead-url=no}}</ref>。陰謀論也是[[公共卫生]]的一大障礙<ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="GlickBooth2014">{{cite journal |last1=Glick |first1=Michael |last2=Booth |first2=H. Austin |title=Conspiracy ideation |journal=The Journal of the American Dental Association |volume=145 |issue=8 |year=2014 |pages=798–799 |issn=0002-8177 |doi=10.1016/S0002-8177(14)60181-1|pmid=25082925 }}</ref>。它導致人們反對[[疫苗接種]]和[[饮水加氟]]等提升公共卫生水平的措施，跟疫苗可預防疾病的流行有一定關係<ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/>。陰謀論的影響還有使人們對科学证据的信任下降<ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="Douglas 538–542">{{Cite journal|last1=Douglas|first1=Karen M.|last2=Sutton|first2=Robbie M.|last3=Cichocka|first3=Aleksandra|date=2017-12-01|title=The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|language=en|volume=26|issue=6|pages=538–542|doi=10.1177/0963721417718261|issn=0963-7214|pmc=5724570|pmid=29276345}}</ref>、令[[极端主义]]团体更為激进、意识形态固化<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/><ref name="Brotherton2015-2">{{cite book |author=Robert Brotherton |title=Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories |chapter=Chapter 2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |date=2015-11-19 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-4729-1564-1 |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2021-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211101091728/https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |dead-url=no }}</ref>、損害[[经济]]<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/>。

阴谋论的傳播曾经只流于边缘受众，不過到了現代則因[[大眾媒體]]、[[互聯網]]、[[社交媒體]]而能夠更貼近主流<ref name="Andrade2020"/>，成为20世纪末21世纪初的一种[[從眾效應|文化现象]]{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=58}}<ref name="Camp 1997">{{Cite book|title=Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia|author=Camp, Gregory S.|publisher=Commish Walsh|year=1997|asin=B000J0N8NC}}</ref><ref name="Goldberg 2001">{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/enemieswithincul00gold_0|title=Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America|author=Goldberg, Robert Alan|publisher=Yale University Press|year=2001|isbn=978-0-300-09000-0|access-date=2019-08-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191217045836/https://archive.org/details/enemieswithincul00gold_0|archive-date=2019-12-17|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="Goldberg 2001" /><ref name="Fenster 2008">{{Cite book|title=Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture|url=https://archive.org/details/conspir_fen_2008_00_4012|author=Fenster, Mark|publisher=University of Minnesota Press; 2nd edition|year=2008|isbn=978-0-8166-5494-9}}</ref>，並開始相當程度的影響政策，這種風氣叫做[[後真相政治]]。它们為世界各地人口之信奉，甚至成為大多數人的信念<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018">{{cite journal |last1=van Prooijen |first1=Jan-Willem |last2=Douglas |first2=Karen M. |title=Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=48 |issue=7 |year=2018 |pages=897–908 |issn=0046-2772 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2530|pmid=30555188 |pmc=6282974 }}</ref><ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009">{{cite journal|last1=Sunstein |first1=Cass R. |last2=Vermeule |first2=Adrian |title=Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures |journal=Journal of Political Philosophy |volume=17 |issue=2 |year=2009 |pages=202–227 |issn=0963-8016 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x}}</ref><ref name="Brotherton2015-i">{{cite book |author=Robert Brotherton |title=Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories |chapter=Introduction |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |date=2015-11-19 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-4729-1564-1 |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2021-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211101091728/https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |dead-url=no }}</ref>。目前網路大規模陰謀論傳播的解方，主要是認為情況能透過保持[[开放社会]]和提高公众的分析思考能力來減少<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/><ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/>。

== 詞源應用 ==
《[[牛津英語詞典]]》把陰謀論定義為「將已發生的事或現象視為因既得利益者在背後密謀而導致的一套理論。特別是认为某种隐蔽但有影响力的机构（通常具有政治动机和壓迫意圖）要对不明原因的事件负责」。它認為最早應用該組字詞的文獻為1909年於《[[美國歷史評論]]》上發表的一篇文章<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on CD-ROM'' (v. 4.0), Oxford University Press, 2009, s.v. '''4'''</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last = Johnson | first = Allen | title = Reviewed Work: ''The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise: Its Origin and Authorship'' by P. Orman Ray | journal = [[美國歷史評論|The American Historical Review]] | volume = 14 | issue = 4 | pages = 835–836 | doi = 10.2307/1837085 | jstor = 1837085 | date = 1909 | hdl = 2027/loc.ark:/13960/t27948c87 | quote = The claim that [David R.] Atchison was the originator of the [Missouri Compromise] repeal may be termed a recrudescence of the conspiracy theory first asserted by Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia in 1880. }}</ref>。不過此一用詞早在1870年4月便於印刷品上出現<ref name="JoMS-1870">{{cite journal |journal=The Journal of Mental Science |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VsRMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141 |last1=Robertson |first1=Lockhart |author2=Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England) |author3=Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland |author4=Royal Medico-psychological Association |title=The Report of a Quarterly Meeting of the Medico-Psychological Association, held in London at the Royal Medico-Chirurgical Society, by permission of the President and Council, on the 27th January, 1870. [in Part IV. Psychological News.] |editor1-last=Maudsley |editor1-first=Henry |editor2-last=Sibbald |editor2-first=John |volume=XVI |number=73 |location=London |date=April 1870 |publisher=[[朗文出版社|Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts]] |issn=0368-315X |oclc=4642826321 |quote=The theory of Dr. Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Reade, and the precautionary measure suggested by Dr. Sankey of using a padded waistcoat in recent cases of mania with general paralysis—in which mental condition nearly all these cases under discussion were—seemed to him of practical value. |access-date=2020-12-21 |archive-date=2021-11-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211111040125/https://books.google.com/books?id=VsRMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。英語的陰謀「conspiracy」為拉丁語「con-」（一起）跟「spirare」（呼吸）拼合而成。

罗伯特·布拉斯基维茨（Robert Blaskiewicz）評論道，早在19世纪就有應用「陰謀論」一词的例子，并指出此一用詞在用法上一直帶有貶義<ref name="CSICOP">{{cite web|url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong|title=Nope, It Was Always Already Wrong|last1=Blaskiewicz|first1=Robert|website=The Skeptical Inquirer|publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry|access-date=2015-12-11|date=2013-08-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151212122454/http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong|archive-date=2015-12-12|deadurl=no}}</ref>。根据安德鲁·麦肯齐-麦卡格（Andrew McKenzie-McHarg）的研究，在19世纪，阴谋论一词仅仅是指「提出了一个可信的阴谋假设」，其「并不带有任何評價，不論是消極還是積極」，尽管有时如此标榜的假设会受到批评<ref>McKenzie-McHarg, Andrew (2019) "Conspiracy Theory: The Nineteenth-Century Prehistory of a Twentieth-Century Concept," pp. 78, 76. In Joseph E. Uscinski (ed) ''Conspiracy Theories & the People Who Believe Them''. New York: Oxford University Press.</ref>。「阴谋论」一詞本身便是陰謀論的對象——此一說法認為陰謀論一詞是[[中央情报局]]推廣給大眾，以使陰謀論支持者成為被嘲笑的對象，令人們對其失去信用，這點在[[華倫委員會]]批評者身上尤其突出<ref name="Brotherton2015-4">{{cite book |author=Robert Brotherton |title=Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories |chapter=Chapter 4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |date=2015-11-19 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-4729-1564-1 |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2021-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211101091728/https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |dead-url=no }}</ref>。政治科學家兰斯·德哈文-史密斯（Lance deHaven-Smith）在其於2013年發表的著作《美國的陰謀論》（Conspiracy Theory in America）中寫道，自1964年華倫委員會就[[约翰·F·肯尼迪遇刺案]]推出報告，以及《紐約時報》在五篇報導中使用陰謀論一詞以來，它便成為了美國的日常用語<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TilCeCKDujQC|title=Conspiracy Theory in America|last1=deHaven-Smith|first1=Lance|date= 2013-04-15|isbn=9780292743793|pages=3|quote=The term "conspiracy theory" did not exist as a phrase in everyday American conversation before 1964. ... In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, ''The New York Times'' published five stories in which "conspiracy theory" appeared.|access-date= 2016-01-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160906032935/https://books.google.com/books?id=TilCeCKDujQC&printsec=frontcover|archive-date= 2016-09-06|deadurl=no}}</ref>。不過[[蒂宾根大学]]美国文学和文化史教授迈克尔·巴特（Michael Butter）批評了德哈文-史密斯的說法。他以德哈文-史密斯引用的中央情报局文件《关于〈沃伦报告〉的批评》（於1976年因《信息自由法》而公開）作有關理據，指其通篇都沒出現過「Conspiracy theory」一詞，只有提及「conspiracy theories」一次——「阴谋论[Conspiracy theories]经常使我们的组织受到怀疑，例如错误地声称[[李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德]]幫過我們做事」<ref>{{cite web |last1=Butter |first1=Michael |title=There's a conspiracy theory that the CIA invented the term 'conspiracy theory' – here's why |url=https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117 |website=The Conversation |publisher=The Conversation Trust (UK) Limited |access-date=2020-11-23 |date=2020-03-16 |archive-date=2021-03-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210326090601/https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

==跟陰謀的不同==
陰謀論並不等同於[[陰謀]]，後者是指至少有二人參與的密谋<ref name="Barkun2016"/>。陰謀論者假定的陰謀具有若干特徵。例如陰謀論者的信念总是與有资格评价其准确性者（像是[[科学家]]或[[历史学家列表|历史学家]]）的主流共識唱反調<ref name="Brotherton2013-q">{{cite journal |last1=Brotherton |first1=Robert |title=Towards a definition of 'conspiracy theory' |journal=PsyPAG Quarterly |volume=88 |year=2013 |pages=9–14 |url=http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |quote=A conspiracy theory is not merely one candidate explanation among other equally plausible alternatives. Rather, the label refers to a claim which runs counter to a more plausible and widely accepted account...[Conspiratorial beliefs are] invariably at odds with the mainstream consensus among scientists, historians, or other legitimate judges of the claim's veracity. |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2015-08-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813062541/http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |dead-url=no }}</ref>。阴谋论者认为自己拥有特權去获得受到社會迫害的知識，或視自己的思考模式受到污名、不能跟相信官方說法的大眾相提並論<ref name="Barkun2016">{{Cite journal |doi=10.1177/0392192116669288 |title=Conspiracy Theories as Stigmatized Knowledge |journal=Diogenes |pages=039219211666928 |year=2016 |last1=Barkun |first1=Michael}}</ref>。{{link-en|迈克尔·巴尔昆|Michael Barkun}}形容陰謀論為「加諸於世界的模板，使得事件看上來更有秩序」<ref name="Barkun2016"/>。

真正的陰謀實際上很難去掩蓋，而且在實行過程中经常会遇到意想不到的问题。這點對於簡單的陰謀同樣適用<ref name="Brotherton2013"/>。與之相比，阴谋论所指的阴谋通常做得滴水不漏，認為像[[官僚制|官僚机构]]般的阴谋家集團可以以近乎完美的能力和保密性行事。陰謀論簡化了事件或現實情況的成因——把复杂或互相影响的因素，乃至偶然和意外都排除在外。把差不多所有的观察结果都解釋成阴谋者蓄意策划<ref name="Brotherton2013">{{cite journal |last1=Brotherton |first1=Robert |title=Towards a definition of 'conspiracy theory' |journal=PsyPAG Quarterly |volume=88 |year=2013 |pages=9–14 |url=http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2015-08-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813062541/http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

陰謀論經常推定阴谋者具有極度的惡意<ref name="Brotherton2013"/>。如罗伯特·布瑞克顿（Robert Brotherton）所述：
{{quote|阴谋论所推定的惡意，往往會超出私利、腐败、残忍、犯罪等範疇。他們所想的陰謀者不僅僅是具有自私議程或不同價值觀的人。相反，阴谋论假设的世界是十分黑白分明。在那个世界里，正邪斗争兩交鋒不斷。而大眾則為组织性迫害的受害者。他們所想的陰謀者往往是近乎纯粹的疯狂邪恶，並因此而行動。阴谋者至少會被指近乎毫无人性地漠视普通民众的基本自由和福祉。更为宏大的阴谋论則會將阴谋者描绘成邪恶的化身：我们所受的所有苦都是他们造成。他们经常犯下令人憎恶且难以想象的残忍行为，努力颠覆或摧毁我们所珍视的一切。<ref name="Brotherton2013"/>}}
==流行度==
陰謀论信念遍佈世界各地<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/>。在非洲农村地区，阴谋论的常见目标有社会精英、敌方部落、西方世界。支持者往往認為阴谋家透過術法來實施阴谋，還有就是指責現代技術本身就是一種邪術，用以傷害或控制人民<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/>。在[[中华人民共和国|中国大陸]]，則廣為流傳着針對[[罗斯柴尔德家族]]的阴谋论。該一說法認為希特拉掌權、[[亞洲金融風暴]]、[[全球变暖]]都為罗斯柴尔德家族一手策劃。它有可能影響了大眾對於通貨政策的討論<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/><ref name="Byford2011">{{cite book |author=J. Byford |title=Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m5Er9ELOwQkC |date=2011-10-12 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-0-230-34921-6 |pages=7–8 |access-date=2020-12-21 |archive-date=2014-01-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140125180033/http://books.google.com/books?id=m5Er9ELOwQkC&printsec=frontcover |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

阴谋论的傳播曾经只流于边缘受众，不過到了現代則因[[大眾媒體]]而能夠更貼近主流，成为20世纪末21世纪初美國的一种[[從眾效應|文化现象]]{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=58}}<ref name="Camp 1997"/><ref name="Goldberg 2001"/><ref name="Fenster 2008"/>。相信阴谋论的倾向跨越了党派和意识形态。陰謀論思維跟反政府取向和低政治效能感相关，陰謀論支持者认为政府對個人權利構成威胁，並會懷疑投票給誰是否真的重要<ref>Adam M. Enders, "Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Constraint." ''Public Opinion Quarterly'' 83.3 (2019): 510–533.</ref>。

世界上不少人支持阴谋论，當中部分甚至成為大多數人的信念<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/><ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/><ref name="Brotherton2015-i"/>。美國有很多人或多或少相信一些陰謀論<ref>{{cite book |last1=West |first=Harry G. |last2=Sanders |first2=Todd |year=2003 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HeMdeV_LvAMC&pg=PP9 |title=Transparency and conspiracy: ethnographies of suspicion in the new world order |publisher=Duke University Press |isbn=978-0-8223-3024-0 |page=4 |access-date=2016-08-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170122093329/https://books.google.com/books?id=HeMdeV_LvAMC&pg=PP9 |archive-date=2017-01-22 |deadurl=no }}</ref>。比如一項於2016年進行的研究發現，有10%美國人相信[[化学尾迹阴谋论]]「完全正確」，20-30%則認為其「有几分道理」<ref name=Gizearth />。這「相当于美国人當中有1.2亿人相信『化学尾迹是真的』」<ref name=Gizearth>{{cite news|last= Kahn|first= Brian|date= 2017-11-02|title= There's a Damn Good Chance Your Neighbor Thinks Chemtrails Are Real|url= https://earther.gizmodo.com/theres-a-damn-good-chance-your-neighbor-thinks-chemtrai-1820077077|work= Gizmodo Earther|access-date=  2019-03-05|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190307173758/https://earther.gizmodo.com/theres-a-damn-good-chance-your-neighbor-thinks-chemtrai-1820077077|archive-date= 2019-03-07|deadurl=no }}</ref>。

網絡上有着不少阴谋论，它們以[[網誌]]、[[YouTube]]视频、[[社会化媒体|社交媒体]]的形式流傳。但互聯網是否使陰謀論更為流行則仍待研究探討<ref>{{cite journal |author= Wood, M. |title= Has the Internet been good for conspiracy theorising? |journal= Psychology Postgraduate Affairs Group (PsyPAG) Quarterly |year= 2015 |number= 88 |pages= 31–33 |url= http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |access-date=2015-09-13 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150813062541/http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |archive-date= 2015-08-13 |deadurl=no }}</ref>。已有研究探討了[[网络搜索引擎|搜索引擎]]上的陰謀論結果，结果显示不同主题的阴谋论存在显著差异。陰謀論結果的連結普遍缺乏信誉，而且质量較低<ref>{{cite journal |author= Ballatore, A. |title= Google chemtrails: A methodology to analyze topic representation in search engine results |journal= First Monday |year= 2015 |volume= 20 |number= 7 |url= http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5597 |doi= 10.5210/fm.v20i7.5597 |access-date= 2015-09-12 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150924102123/http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5597 |archive-date=  2015-09-24 |deadurl=no }}</ref>。

在奧巴馬在位期間，不少有關他的陰謀論開始流傳，其中一個有關其出生地的陰謀論<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Enders|first1=Adam M.|last2=Smallpage|first2=Steven M.|last3=Lupton|first3=Robert N.|date=2018-07-09|title=Are All 'Birthers' Conspiracy Theorists? On the Relationship Between Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Orientations|journal=British Journal of Political Science|volume=50|issue=3|pages=849–866|doi=10.1017/s0007123417000837|issn=0007-1234}}</ref>稱他不是在夏威夷出生，真正的出生地點反而是肯尼亞<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sweek|first=Joel|date= 2006|title=Michael Barkun, . A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. xii+243 pp. $24.95 (cloth).|url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-religion_2006-10_86_4/page/691|journal=The Journal of Religion|volume=86|issue=4|pages=691–692|doi=10.1086/509680|issn=0022-4189}}</ref>。阿肯色州前州长、奥巴马的政治对手[[麥克·赫卡比]]及一眾[[共和黨 (美國)|共和黨]]人一再质疑奥巴马的公民身份，使此事於2011年成為頭條<ref>{{Cite news|last=News|first=Albert R. Hunt {{!}} Bloomberg|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/us/04iht-letter04.html|title=Republicans Ride Theories of the Fringe|date=2011-04-03|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-23|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110408044013/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/us/04iht-letter04.html|archive-date= 2011-04-08|deadurl=no}}</ref>。

谷歌前工程師紀堯姆·查斯洛特指出[[YouTube]]的推薦算法為了將用戶更久地在網站看視頻，偏向推薦陰謀論的視頻。查斯洛特和他的團隊進行了18個月的研究，每項研究都發現YouTube在系統性地放大各類型的陰謀論視頻<ref>{{cite news |author1=Paul Lewis |title='Fiction is outperforming reality': how YouTube's algorithm distorts truth |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth |accessdate=2021-09-19 |work=[[衛報]] |date=2018-02-02 |language=en |archive-date=2020-04-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200407024503/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

== 類型 ==
陰謀論可以只影響本地，亦可以影響國際。它們一部分只聚焦於單一事件，另外一部分的範圍則涵蓋多個事件、整個國家地域，乃至一段歷史時期<ref name="Barkun2016"/>。

===沃克五分類===
{{link-en|杰西·沃克|Jesse Walker}}（2013年）把陰謀論分成五類：
* 外部敵人：指責外部某些人對社群圖謀不軌。
* 內部敵人：指責陰謀家就混在國內人民之中。
* 上層敵人：認為有权势者為自身利益而去操縱事件。
* 下層敵人：認為下層階級密謀顛覆社會秩序。
* 善意的陰謀：認為像天使般的勢力正在幕後改善世界，造福人群<ref>Jesse Walker, ''The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory'' (2013) [https://www.amazon.com/United-States-Paranoia-Conspiracy-Theory/dp/0062135554/ excerpt and text search] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190512054322/https://www.amazon.com/United-States-Paranoia-Conspiracy-Theory/dp/0062135554 |date=2019-05-12 }}</ref>。

===巴爾昆三分類===
{{link-en|迈克尔·巴尔昆|Michael Barkun}}把陰謀論分為三類：
* 跟事件有關的陰謀論：跟已有明確定義的事件有關的陰謀論。比如[[肯尼迪遇刺案阴谋论|肯尼迪遇刺案]]、[[九一一袭击事件|九一一袭击]]、艾滋病的傳播{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=6}}。
* 體制性陰謀論：認為有人在密謀支配整個國家、地域，乃至全世界。根據此一類型的說法，陰謀者具有十分廣大的目標，不過陰謀的機制則一般較為簡單：某个邪恶的组织有着渗透和颠覆现有制度的計劃。此一類型的陰謀論很多時候會聚焦於[[犹太-美生阴谋论|犹太人]]、共濟會、[[红色恐慌|共產主義]]、天主教会的「可疑」動向{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=6}}。
* 超陰謀論：將多個陰謀論层层联到一起的陰謀論。最頂點為自有永有，全知全能的邪惡勢力。他把[[大卫·艾克]]和[[米爾頓·威廉·庫珀]]兩人的理念視為超陰謀論的例子{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=6}}。

=== 羅斯巴德的分类 ===
[[穆瑞·羅斯巴德]]支持把陰謀論分成深淺兩層。羅斯巴德指出，「淺層」陰謀論支持者在觀察事件的同時會問到「這令誰獲益？」，然後一下子跳到結論，認為他所認定的受益人暗中影響事件進程。而「深層」陰謀論支持者則為先由直覺導出結論，然後才尋找證據。罗斯巴德形容後者為以某些事實來證實自身打從一開始就有的偏執<ref>As quoted by B.K. Marcus in "[https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_2.pdf Radio Free Rothbard] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140817054514/http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_2.pdf |date=2014-08-17 }}," ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'', Vol 20, No 2. (SPRING 2006): pp 17–51. Retrieved 2013-05-16.</ref>。
==陰謀論與證據的關係==
支持者因自身的信念而去信奉陰謀論，此舉一般並非建基於證據之上{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=7}}。[[诺姆·乔姆斯基]]將陰謀論跟制度分析比較，指後者主要聚焦於知名機關的長期公開行為上，並以主流媒體或學術文件上的記錄佐證有關行為的真確性<ref name="WintonickQuébec)1994">{{cite book |editor-last=Achbar |editor-first=Mark |year=1994 |title=Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media |url=https://archive.org/details/manufacturingcon00achb|publisher=Black Rose Books Ltd. |isbn=978-1-55164-002-0 |page=[https://archive.org/details/manufacturingcon00achb/page/131 131]}}</ref>。阴谋论则跟制度分析相反，先假定世上存有跟某些人有關的秘密組織，然後推測他們會怎樣活動<ref>{{cite book | title = Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture | author = Jack Z. Bratich | publisher = State University of New York Press, Albany | pages = 98–100 | access-date = 2015-06-16 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=CaDA2uhr8lkC | isbn = 9780791473344 | date = 2008-02-07 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190418133830/https://books.google.com/books?id=CaDA2uhr8lkC&printsec=frontcover | archive-date =2019-04-18 | deadurl=no }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | title = Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction | author = Jovan Byford | publisher = Palgrave MacMillan | pages = 25–27 | access-date = 2015-06-16 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=m5Er9ELOwQkC | isbn = 9780230349216 | date =  2011-10-12 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140125180033/http://books.google.com/books?id=m5Er9ELOwQkC&printsec=frontcover | archive-date =  2014-01-25 | deadurl=no  }}</ref>。相信陰謀論跟像[[合取谬误]]般的推理謬誤有關<ref name="BrothertonFrench2014">{{cite journal|last1=Brotherton|first1=Robert|last2=French|first2=Christopher C.|title=Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|volume=28|issue=2|year=2014|pages=238–248|issn=0888-4080|doi=10.1002/acp.2995}}</ref>。

[[伦敦国王学院]]的克莱尔·伯查尔（Clare Birchall）形容陰謀論為一種「通俗易懂的知識或詮釋」{{efn|伯查尔於2006年寫道：「我们可以把阴谋论理解为独特而又通俗易懂的知識或詮釋……以此作我們理解認識它的切入點<ref name=Birchall2006>{{cite book | last = Birchall | first = Clare | contribution = Cultural studies on/as conspiracy theory | editor-last = Birchall | editor-first = Clare | title = Knowledge goes pop from conspiracy theory to gossip | publisher = Berg | location = Oxford, New York | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-1-84520-143-2 }}</ref>{{rp|66}}」}}。伯查尔在這使用了知識一詞，用以顯示阴谋论可以跟正當的認識方法聯繫起來{{efn|伯查尔於2006年寫道：「我们很快就发现……不可能将阴谋论和学术话语明确劃分為不正當/正當」<ref name=Birchall2006/>{{rp|72}}}}。伯查尔認為與常见的阴谋论驳斥相比，正當與不正當的知識之間的關係比較接近<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Birchall | first = Clare | title = Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you | journal = Culture Machine, Deconstruction Is/In Cultural Studies | volume = 6 | year = 2004 |url= http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/12/11 | access-date = 2015-03-11 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923211857/http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/12/11 | archive-date =  2015-09-23|deadurl=yes}}</ref>。

若證明了多個陰謀者參與其中的說法是正確的，它們通常就會被稱為「調查性新聞」或「歷史分析」，而不是陰謀論——[[水门事件]]便是一例<ref name="knight-2003">{{cite book|author=Peter Knight|title=Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&pg=PA730|date=2003-01-01|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-57607-812-9|pages=730–|access-date=2016-01-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160906162011/https://books.google.com/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&pg=PA730|archive-date=2016-09-05|deadurl=no}}</ref>。而「水门事件阴谋论」則是用於代指被定罪者背後還有黑幕的假說<ref>{{cite magazine|author=Ron Rosenbaum|title=Ah, Watergate|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/104169/ah-watergate|year=2012|magazine=New Republic|access-date=2016-06-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160806155414/https://newrepublic.com/article/104169/ah-watergate|archive-date=2016-08-06|deadurl=no}}</ref>。

==修辭==
陰謀論的修辭利用了几个重要的[[認知偏誤]]，比如{{link-en|比例性偏誤|proportionality bias}}、{{link-en|歸因偏誤|attribution bias}}、[[確認偏誤]]<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/>。最成功的阴谋论能吸引各界市民支持，致使宗教界、新聞界、政治界都有人信奉之。提倡者不一定真的相信該套陰謀論，反而有可能希望藉著陰謀論獲得公眾認可。部分阴谋论運用了[[訴諸情感]]的修辞策略，藉此说服一部分公众<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>。

大多阴谋论都聚焦於知识的空白或含糊之處，然後藉此辯稱事情之所以是這樣，唯一的答案就是[[訴諸無知|背後有人在密謀]]<ref name="Brotherton2013"/>。凡是能直接支持其主张的证据，質量一般都十分低下。例如阴谋论往往以目击者的证词作佐證，不過它本身並不可靠，而且忽視了對證據的客觀分析<ref name="Brotherton2013"/>。

阴谋论欠缺[[可证伪性]]，並靠著[[循環論證]]強化論點：不論是反對陰謀論的證據，還是實質證據欠奉，都能被陰謀論者視為支持其想法的證據<ref name="Byford" /><ref name="Keeley1999"/>，致使其成為了信念問題，並不能夠證明或反駁<ref name="Barkun2003"/><ref name="Barkun2011"/>。阴谋论的认识策略稱為「級聯邏輯」：每當一項新證據出現時，阴谋论支持者都會宣稱這是另外一些人為隠藏真相而故意設好的「偽證據」，以此批評其本身不足以採信<ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="Brotherton2013"/>。任何与阴谋论相悖的信息，都会被視為阴谋者發放的假消息<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/>。同样，若缺乏直接支持阴谋论主张的证据，支持者則會把之視為「沈默的陰謀」；支持者把其他人没有发现或揭露任何阴谋的事实解作这些人就是阴谋的一部分，而不考慮到這可能是因為事件背後沒有陰謀<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="Brotherton2013"/>。这种策略让阴谋论与中立的证据分析绝缘，使其无法受到质疑或纠正——這點稱為「认识上的自我绝缘」<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="Brotherton2013"/>。

阴谋论支持者能從媒體的[[虚假平衡]]報導獲益。他们可能会宣称自己提出的是正當的替代觀點，故应予以同樣時間或篇幅讓其論證自身的觀點。比如提倡[[智能设计]]的教授爭論運動經常稱科學家密謀打壓其觀點。如果他们成功找到一個以辯論形式表達自身觀點的平台，那麼他们就会執著於在修辭上[[訴諸人身]]，攻击主流说法對其的批評，同時忽略自身立場有何缺點<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>。

阴谋论的典型做法就是对当局的任何行动或声明提出质疑，哪怕自身理由多麽薄弱也好。然后采用双重标准去評價當局的答复，如果不能立即作出令阴谋论者满意的答复，即會說這證明了背後有陰謀。答复中的任何细微错误都會一再強調，同時寬待支持陰謀論的論點<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>。

在科学领域，阴谋论者可能会认为一個[[科学理论]]可透過一點其所認定的缺陷來推翻，即使他們所說的事件極為罕見。此外，无视陰謀論支持者的宣稱，或對之進行反駁，都能被他們視為證明有陰謀的證據<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>。其他阴谋论者的论点未必建基於科学；例如很多反對者在批評[[政府間氣候變化專門委員會]]的第二次评估报告時，都把焦點落在起草程序上。具体而言，他們會宣稱部分程序反映了压迫异议者的阴谋，成功地将公众讨论从科学帶開<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>。

== 作為世界觀的陰謀論 ==
歷史學家[[理查德·霍夫施塔特]]在1964年的一篇文章《{{link-en|美国政治中的偏执风格|The Paranoid Style in American Politics}}》中，論及了[[偏執狂]]和陰謀論在[[美国历史]]上的角色。[[伯纳德·贝林]]在其經典著作《{{link-en|美國革命的思想意識淵源|The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution}}》（1967年）中，同樣表示類似現象能在[[美國革命]]前的北美找到。陰謀史觀為人們的態度貼上標籤，乃至使陰謀論的範圍更為廣泛<ref>{{cite book| last = Bailyn| first = Bernard| title = 'The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution| publisher = [[哈佛大学出版社|Harvard University Press]]| location = Cambridge| id = ASIN: B000NUF6FQ| isbn = 978-0-674-44302-0| year = 1992| orig-year = 1967}}{{page needed|date=2011}}</ref>。

其中一項得到廣泛證明的陰謀論相關事實如下：相信某個陰謀論者，往往傾向於相信其他不相干的陰謀論<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="SuttonDouglas2020">{{cite journal |last1=Sutton |first1=Robbie M |last2=Douglas |first2=Karen M |title=Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset: implications for political ideology |journal=Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences |volume=34 |year=2020 |pages=118–122 |issn=2352-1546 |doi=10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.02.015}}</ref>。即使兩個陰謀論直接互相衝突，這點同樣適用——比如相信[[奥萨马·本·拉登]]在巴基斯坦受襲前已身故者，更傾向於相信其仍然在生。從這一發現可見，陰謀論者所相信的內容往往不如「當局在隱瞞些什麼」的想法重要<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="SciAm2013">{{Cite web| title = Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories| last = Linden| first = Sander van der| work = Scientific American| date = 2013-04-30| access-date = 2020-10-16| url = https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories/| archive-date = 2021-01-15| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210115000651/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories/| dead-url = no}}</ref><ref name="BilewiczCichocka2015">{{cite book |author1=Michal Bilewicz |author2=Aleksandra Cichocka |author3=Wiktor Soral |title=The Psychology of Conspiracy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WrJhCQAAQBAJ |date=2015-05-15 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-59952-4 |access-date=2020-12-23 |archive-date=2020-12-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201226023011/https://books.google.com/books?id=WrJhCQAAQBAJ |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

弗兰克·P·明茨（ Frank P. Mintz）這名學者於1980年代使「陰謀史觀」（conspiracism）一詞更廣為人知。明茨把陰謀史觀定義為：「相信阴谋在历史发展中具備決定性作用」<ref name=Mintz1985>{{cite book| last = Mintz| first = Frank P.| title = The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, and Culture| publisher = Greenwood | location = Westport, CT | isbn = 978-0-313-24393-6| year = 1985}}</ref>{{rp|4}}：

{{quote|陰謀史觀满足了世界各地不同政治和社会团体的需要。它識別各路精英，然後把經濟和社會災難視之所為。认为一旦民众行动起來，将他们赶下权力岗位，情况就会好转。因此，阴谋论跨越了時代和意識形態<ref name=Mintz1985/>{{rp|199}}。}}

《[[時代雜誌]]》的{{link-en|贾斯汀·福克斯|Justin Fox}}認為，华尔街的交易员為較有阴谋意识的群体。他以一部分跟金融市場有關的陰謀論的真實性，以及陰謀論能夠為市場的日常活動提供必要的導向作相關論證<ref name="business.time.com">Justin Fox: [http://business.time.com/2009/10/01/wall-streeters-like-conspiracy-theories-always-have/ "Wall Streeters like conspiracy theories. Always have"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160226100601/http://business.time.com/2009/10/01/wall-streeters-like-conspiracy-theories-always-have/ |date=2016-02-26 }}, ''Time'', 2009-10-01.</ref>。
===中東===
阴谋论在[[阿拉伯人|阿拉伯]]文化與政治中頗為常見<ref name=Gray>{{cite book|title=Conspiracy Theories in the Arab World|author=Matthew Gray|isbn=978-0-415-57518-8|year=2010}}</ref>。他們部分陰謀論跟殖民主義、[[錫安主義]]、超級大國、石油、[[反恐战争]]有關；他們可能視反恐战争為對伊斯蘭教發動的宗教戰爭<ref name=Gray/>。当地亦广为流傳着指稱猶太人密謀掌控世界的[[惡作劇|偽造]]文件《[[锡安长老会纪要]]》<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/26/world/anti-semitic-elders-of-zion-gets-new-life-on-egypt-tv.html|title=Anti-Semitic 'Elders of Zion' Gets New Life on Egypt TV|last=Wakin|first=Daniel J.|date=2002-10-26|work=The New York Times|access-date=2014-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816063157/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/26/world/anti-semitic-elders-of-zion-gets-new-life-on-egypt-tv.html|archive-date= 2014-08-16|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/KSAtextbooks06.pdf |title=2006 Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060823125127/http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/KSAtextbooks06.pdf |archive-date=2006-05-23}} Report by Center for Religious Freedom of Freedom House. 2006</ref><ref>[https://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB113046423225782130 "The Booksellers of Tehran"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170410052122/https://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB113046423225782130 |date=2017-04-10 }}, ''[[华尔街日报|The Wall Street Journal]]'',  2005-10-28</ref>。{{link-en|罗杰·科恩|Roger Cohen}}認為，阴谋论之所以在阿拉伯世界受到歡迎，是因為他們「穷途末路」<ref name="Cohen">{{cite news |last=Cohen |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Cohen |title=The Captive Arab Mind |newspaper=The New York Times |date=2010-12-20 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen21.html |access-date=2017-02-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625080138/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen21.html |archive-date=2017-06-25 |deadurl=no }}</ref>。阿尔-穆明（Al-Mumin）指出了阴谋论的危險性，表示它们「使我们远离真相，无法面对自己的错误和问题」<ref>{{cite news|url=http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200405060835.asp|title=A Vast Conspiracy|date=2004-05-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004220251/http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200405060835.asp|archive-date= 2013-10-04|work=National Review|author=Steven Stalinsky}}</ref>。

[[奥萨马·本·拉登]]和[[艾曼·扎瓦希里]]利用有關[[美国]]的陰謀論，去为阿拉伯世界的[[基地组织]]爭取支持，把自身跟類似組織區分開來，不過他們有可能不相信從自己口中吐出的陰謀論<ref name="Gray158-159">{{cite book|author=Matthew Gray|title=Conspiracy Theories in the Arab World: Sources and Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BpxdBwAAQBAJ|date=2010-07-12|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-96751-1|pages=158–159|access-date=2020-12-24|archive-date=2020-12-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201226023035/https://books.google.com/books?id=BpxdBwAAQBAJ|dead-url=no}}</ref>。

=== 美國 ===
哈利·G·韦斯特（Harry G. West）等人表示，虽然在大眾的觀感上阴谋论者只是「边缘的少数」，但某些证据顯示，美国很多人或多或少相信一些阴谋论。韦斯特把阴谋论跟[[民族主義|超民族主義]]和[[原教旨主義|宗教原教旨主義]]相提並論<ref>{{cite book |title = Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order | author = Harry G. West|publisher=Duke University Press Books|pages=4, 207–08|display-authors=etal}}</ref><ref>Shermer, Michael, and Pat Linse.  ''Conspiracy Theories''.  Altadena, CA: Skeptics Society, n.d.  Print.</ref>。

神学家罗伯特·朱伊特（Robert Jewett）和哲学家{{link-en|约翰·谢尔顿·劳伦|John Shelton Lawrence}}認為阴谋论在美国盛行的背後原因在於[[冷战]]、[[麦卡锡主义]]、抗拒權威的[[1960年代反文化运动|反文化运动]]。他们指出，不論左右翼，皆會以苏联的阴谋、[[華倫委員會|華倫委員會報告的不一致之處]]、九一一襲擊等真實事件，去支持沒有得到證實的大規模陰謀的確存在的說法<ref>Jewett, Robert; John Shelton Lawrence (2004) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=VE2k18ScPnQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theories%22 Captain America and the crusade against evil: the dilemma of zealous nationalism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190418133818/https://books.google.com/books?id=VE2k18ScPnQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20theories%22 |date= 2019-04-18 }}'' Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing p. 206.</ref>。

[[水门事件]]亦為其他陰謀論加添幾筆可信性，[[理查德·尼克松]]自身曾稱它作「[[墨迹测验]]」，其他人能夠不斷為之加添自己的猜想<ref name="knight-2003" />。

歷史學家凯瑟琳·S·奥姆斯特德（Kathryn S. Olmsted）提到了美國人傾向於相信陰謀論的三個原因：
#冷战期间，美国政府部分行动做得太过火，並有着一股秘密主义作风。相關例子：[[水门事件]]、[[塔斯基吉梅毒試驗]]、[[MKUltra计划]]、[[暗杀菲德尔·卡斯特罗事件]]。
#政府过去有着为了宣傳而支持阴谋论的先例。相關例子：二戰期間宣稱德國已滲透到美國、錯誤指責萨达姆·侯赛因在九一一襲擊中扮演着一定角色。
#美國政府把監視和骚扰持不同政見者視為《1918年煽动法》、[[反谍计划]]、[[红色恐慌]]等行動的一環，導致人民不信任政府<ref>Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2011) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=u7Sd5vyOOtEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA8#v=onepage Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190418133815/https://books.google.com/books?id=u7Sd5vyOOtEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA8#v=onepage |date= 2019-04-18 }}'', Oxford University Press, p. 8.</ref>。

==影響==

陰謀論在歷史上跟[[偏見]]、[[獵巫]]、[[战争]]、[[种族灭绝]]存有密切關係<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/><ref name="Goertzel2010"/>。 [[恐怖袭击]]的肇事者往往对陰謀論深信不疑。[[提摩太·占士·麥克維|提摩太·麥克維]]、[[安德斯·贝林·布雷维克|安德斯·布雷维克]]、[[基督城清真寺槍擊案|布伦顿·塔兰特]]，乃至[[納粹德國]]、[[苏联]]等地的政府都以陰謀論去合理化自己的行為<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/>。[[南非]]政府在陰謀論的推動下進行了[[艾滋病重估运动]]，導致了約330,000人因艾滋病而死<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="SimelelaVenter2015"/><ref name="BurtonGiddy2015"/>。[[赞比亚]]政府因相信转基因食品阴谋论，而在[[饥荒]]期間拒绝粮食援助<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>——当时赞比亚有300万人在挨饿<ref name="BrossardShanahan2007"/>。

陰謀論也是[[公共卫生]]的一大障礙<ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="GlickBooth2014"/>。支持健康相關陰謀論的人較不願意遵循{{link-en|醫學建議|medical advice}}，更有可能尋求[[替代医学|替代療法]]<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/>。像药厂阴谋论般的[[接種疫苗爭議|反疫苗]]陰謀論信念，可導致疫苗接種率下降，跟疫苗可預防疾病的流行有一定關係<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="PrematungeCorace2012">{{cite journal |last1=Prematunge |first1=Chatura |last2=Corace |first2=Kimberly |last3=McCarthy |first3=Anne |last4=Nair |first4=Rama C. |last5=Pugsley |first5=Renee |last6=Garber |first6=Gary |title=Factors influencing pandemic influenza vaccination of healthcare workers—A systematic review |journal=Vaccine |volume=30 |issue=32 |year=2012 |pages=4733–4743 |issn=0264-410X |doi=10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.018|pmid=22643216 }}</ref><ref name="GlickBooth2014"/>。与健康相关的阴谋论往往会使人们反對[[饮水加氟]]，與MMR-自闭症事件一同影響人們對疫苗的信心<ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="GlickBooth2014"/>。

很多激進或極端主義團體皆以陰謀論為基石。陰謀論可能使它們及內部成員的意識形態固化，使成員的信念更趨向極端<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/><ref name="Brotherton2015-2"/>。該些阴谋论的主題往往大同小異，部分出現根本性對立的團體會相信同一群陰謀者在背後密謀，比如極左或極右派皆有人支持[[反犹太主义|反犹太]]陰謀論<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/>。普遍而言，相信阴谋论与极端和不接受妥协的立場有关，并可能帮助人们繼續採取同樣立場<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/>。虽然阴谋论并不总是出现在极端主义团体之内，而且在出现时也不一定会导致暴力事件，但阴谋论可以使该团体變得更极端、把仇恨引導至陰謀者上、使得成员在社会當中更為孤立。要求人們立即行動、訴諸偏見、將敵人妖魔化或視其為罪惡根源的陰謀論最容易激發暴力<ref name="Brotherton2015-2"/>。

職場當中的陰謀論有可能損害經濟。比如它跟工作滿意度和貢獻低下有關，致使職員更有可能辭職<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/>。陰謀論跟職場謠言有著一些共同特點，兩者都會導致生產力下降，增加職場內的壓力。繼使上級的利潤減少、員工對其的信任度下降，損害公司形象<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/><ref name="DiFonzoBordia1994">{{cite journal |last1=DiFonzo |first1=Nicholas |last2=Bordia |first2=Prashant |last3=Rosnow |first3=Ralph L. |title=Reining in rumors |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_organizational-dynamics_summer-1994_23_1/page/47 |journal=Organizational Dynamics |volume=23 |issue=1 |year=1994 |pages=47–62 |issn=0090-2616 |doi=10.1016/0090-2616(94)90087-6}}</ref>。

阴谋论會轉移人們的關注點，使之難以聚焦在重要的社會、政治、科學問題<ref name="Jolley2013">{{cite journal |last1=Jolley |first1=Daniel |title=The detrimental nature of conspiracy theories |journal=PsyPAG Quarterly |volume=88 |year=2013 |pages=35–39 |url=http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2015-08-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813062541/http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf |dead-url=no }}</ref><ref name="SciAm2013"/>。此外支持者會利用阴谋论诋毁科学证据，有關策略跟试图诋毁专家证词的律师如同。該些律師会宣稱作证的专家有着不可告人的动机；试图找人作供，以此暗示专家意见比实际情况更有分歧<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>。

在某些情况下，阴谋论可能會對社會產生一定益處。比方說，它们可以帮助人们识别政府的欺骗行为，并鼓励政府以更透明的作風執政——這點在高压社会尤其明顯<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/><ref name="Jolley2013"/>。不過真正的陰謀往往只能由像[[吹哨人]]和[[新聞工作者]]般的體制內人士揭穿，而阴谋论者所花费的精力大多都為枉费心機<ref name="Brotherton2015-2"/>。那些煽动暴力、将弱势群体当作替罪羊、關乎重要社会问题的阴谋论，相對而言較有危险性<ref name="Brotherton2015-e">{{cite book |author=Robert Brotherton |title=Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories |chapter=Epilogue |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |date=2015-11-19 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-4729-1564-1 |access-date=2020-12-19 |archive-date=2021-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211101091728/https://books.google.com/books?id=awrcCQAAQBAJ |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

==對策==
保持[[开放社会]]為對抗陰謀論的一線對策。此類社會需要同時存有多個可靠消息來源；官方資訊則需擺脫各種宣傳技倆，並讓廣大民眾視之為可靠的消息來源。此外需要有獨立的非政府組織糾正錯誤信息，不應要求民眾相信政府<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/>。除此之外，亦可從陰謀論信念的情感和社會特質入手，以減低陰謀論的吸引力。比如推廣[[分析性思維]]的對策更有可能有效。另外一些手段則以減少负面情绪為基石，改善希望感和賦權感<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/>。

直接打擊錯誤資訊可能具有逆效果。比方說，陰謀論可將不确定的信息重新解釋作其敘事的一部分，反驳一个说法可能會使之更為固化<ref name="Brotherton2013"/><ref name="SciAm2019"/>。此外發表對陰謀論的批評，可能會使之正當化<ref name="Jolley2013"/>。在这种情况下，則可能需認真選擇哪些是應該反駁的陰謀論、要求独立的观察者进行更多的分析、引入其他認知方法，以破壞其差劣的認識論<ref name="Jolley2013"/>。任何正當效應都可能在回應多個陰謀論時削弱<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/>。

然而現有證據顯示，向人们纠正事实，或强调阴谋论中的逻辑矛盾，在很多情况下都有着积极作用<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/><ref name="SciAm2019"/>。例如在向[[九一一事件陰謀論]]支持者轉達专家和证人的陈述时，便體會出這點<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/>。如果某些批评挑战了某人的世界观或身份，那麼便較有可能適得其反。故此若能做到在批評的同時，避免這類挑戰，那麼便較有可能有效應對陰謀論<ref name="SciAm2019">{{Cite web| title = People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features| last = Moyer| first = Melinda Wenner| work = Scientific American| date = 2019-03-01| access-date = 2020-01-16| url = https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/| archive-date = 2021-02-14| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210214224227/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/| dead-url = no}}</ref>。

== 心理學 ==
自1960年代美國總統[[约翰·肯尼迪]][[约翰·F·肯尼迪遇刺案|遇刺]]以來，大量有關此事的[[肯尼迪遇刺案阴谋论|阴谋论]]便於美國民眾間傳播，使得心理學家、社會學家、民俗學家開始對阴谋论產生興趣。[[社會學家]]图尔凯·萨利姆·内费斯（Türkay Salim Nefes）强调了阴谋论的政治性质。他认为，這些說法主要是為了嘗試揭露社会群体中「真实而隐蔽」的权力关系<ref name="Turkay Nefes">{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/1467-954X.12016 | volume=61 | issue=2 | title=Political parties' perceptions and uses of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Turkey | year=2013 | journal=The Sociological Review | pages=247–264 | last1 = Nefes | first1 = Türkay S }}</ref><ref name="Nefes">{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/j.1467-6443.2012.01434.x | volume=25 | issue=3 | title=The History of the Social Constructions of Dönmes (Converts)* | year=2012 | journal=Journal of Historical Sociology | pages=413–439 | last1 = Nefes | first1 = Türkay S.}}</ref>。

研究顯示相信陰謀論可能對心理有害，或可視作一種病態<ref name="Freeman 595–604"/><ref name="Barron 156–159"/>。它跟[[投射|心理投射]]和能夠透過[[馬基雅維利主義 (心理學)|馬基雅維利主義]]的程度预测的[[偏執狂|偏執]]思想有著強烈關係<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Douglas|first1=Karen M.|last2=Sutton|first2=Robbie M.|date= 2011-04-12|title=Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire|url=http://kar.kent.ac.uk/26187/1/Douglas%20%26%20Sutton%202011%20BJSP.pdf|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|volume=10|issue=3|pages=544–552|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x|pmid=21486312|access-date=2018-12-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181103180834/https://kar.kent.ac.uk/26187/1/Douglas%20%26%20Sutton%202011%20BJSP.pdf|archive-date=2018-11-03|deadurl=no}}</ref>。相信阴谋论的倾向与思覺失調的精神健康障礙有著強烈關聯<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Barron|first1=David|last2=Furnham|first2=Adrian|last3=Weis|first3=Laura|last4=Morgan|first4=Kevin D.|last5=Towell|first5=Tony|last6=Swami|first6=Viren|date= 2018|title=The relationship between schizotypal facets and conspiracist beliefs via cognitive processes|journal=Psychiatry Research|volume=259|pages=15–20|doi=10.1016/j.psychres.2017.10.001|issn=1872-7123|pmid=29024855|url=http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/20297/1/1-s2.0-S0165178117312301-main-1.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Darwin|first1=Hannah|last2=Neave|first2=Nick|last3=Holmes|first3=Joni|date=2011-06-01|title=Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy|url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_2011-06_50_8/page/1289|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|language=en|volume=50|issue=8|pages=1289–1293|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.027|issn=0191-8869}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Barron|first1=David|last2=Morgan|first2=Kevin|last3=Towell|first3=Tony|last4=Altemeyer|first4=Boris|last5=Swami|first5=Viren|date=2014-11-01|title=Associations between schizotypy and belief in conspiracist ideation|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|language=en|volume=70|pages=156–159|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.040|issn=0191-8869|url=http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/14570/1/1-s2.0-S0191886914003821-main.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite document|title=The Relationship Between Schizotypal Facets and Conspiracist Beliefs via Cognitive Processes|last1=D|first1=Barron|last2=A|first2=Furnham|date=2018|language=en|pmid=29024855|last3=L|first3=Weis|last4=Kd|first4=Morgan|last5=T|first5=Towell|last6=V|first6=Swami}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dagnall|first1=Neil|last2=Drinkwater|first2=Kenneth|last3=Parker|first3=Andrew|last4=Denovan|first4=Andrew|last5=Parton|first5=Megan|date=2015|title=Conspiracy theory and cognitive style: a worldview|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=6|pages=206|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00206|issn=1664-1078|pmc=4340140|pmid=25762969}}</ref>。陰謀論的傳播曾經只流於邊緣受眾，不過到了現代則因大眾媒體而能夠更貼近主流，成為20世紀末21世紀初的一種文化現象{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=58}}<ref name="Camp 1997" /><ref name="Goldberg 2001" /><ref name="Fenster 2008" />。人們在新聞或娛樂產品上接觸到不少陰謀論，致使他們更為接受陰謀或邊緣理念<ref name="DouglasUscinski2019"/><ref name="StojanovHalberstadt2020">{{cite journal |last1=Stojanov |first1=Ana |last2=Halberstadt |first2=Jamin |title=Does lack of control lead to conspiracy beliefs? A meta‐analysis |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=50 |issue=5 |year=2020 |pages=955–968 |issn=0046-2772 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2690}}</ref>。

阴谋论的论点往往十分複雜而又詳細，當中有的論點看似具備分析或科學特質。不過相信陰謀論者主要受到情感驅使<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/>。分析性思維可使人們對陰謀論的信賴減少，當中一部分原因在於它強調理性和批判性認知<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/>。一些心理学家認為，跟陰謀論有關的解釋往往符合當事人在「阴谋」发生前，所抱持的坚定信念<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/>。

===陰謀論的吸引力===
相信阴谋论的心理动机可分为认识性、存在性和社会性三类。這些動機尤見於弱势和处境不利者。然而阴谋论信念不僅無助解決該些動機，還可能使得支持者自欺欺人，令情況變得更糟<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/><ref name="SciAm2019"/>。比方說，儘管人們可能因無力感而支持陰謀論，但陰謀論同樣會使當事人的自主和控制感下降。此外相信陰謀論亦會使人們失去就現況採取行動的動機<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/><ref name="SciAm2019"/>。

此外現有證據亦證實陰謀論具有其他不良影響<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/>。比如它們會使支持者對所認定的陰謀家更有負面觀感和不信任感——他們認為該些陰謀家因着反社會和憤世嫉俗的動機而行動。可合理預期此將使[[社會異化|異化]]和[[失範]]的程度增加，繼令[[社会资本]]減少。它们也把公众描述成对所谓的阴谋家一无所知、无能为力，社会的重要事項皆由邪恶势力一手决定——这种观点很可能使人更具無力感<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/>。

认同阴谋论者背後有著各種各樣的理由<ref name="GoreisVoracek2019"/>。那些觉得阴谋论很有吸引力的人很多都表現出一種[[社會異化|疏離感]]；不满自己的处境；有着一种非传统的世界观；還有就是感到[[賦權|无能为力]]<ref name="GoreisVoracek2019"/>。虽然人格的各个方面都会影响对阴谋论的易感性，但[[五大人格特质]]當中没有一个跟阴谋论信念有關<ref name="GoreisVoracek2019">{{cite journal |last1=Goreis |first1=Andreas |last2=Voracek |first2=Martin |title=A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs: Field Characteristics, Measurement Instruments, and Associations With Personality Traits |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=10 |year=2019 |page=205 |issn=1664-1078 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205|pmid=30853921 |pmc=6396711 }}</ref>。

政治科學家米高·巴爾昆在探討當代美國文化中對於陰謀論的運用時，认为其是用於代指「一種將事件解釋成特別強大而又狡猾的陰謀家為了達到某種邪惡目的，而在背後密謀所致的信念」{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=3}}<ref name="New Internationalist 1 2004"/>。巴爾昆表示，陰謀論的誘人之處主要有三：

* 「首先，陰謀論宣稱能夠解釋制度分析所不能解釋的事。它們讓這個原本混亂無序的世界看上去十分合理。
* 其次，它們簡單而又吸引地把世界上的勢力二分成[[摩尼教|光明與黑暗]]。它們把所有的罪恶都追溯到一个源头——阴谋家及其代理人。
* 最後，阴谋论往往被說成他人不知道或不了解的[[西方秘契主義|特殊知识]]。对于阴谋论者而言，群众全都被洗脑，阴谋论者则可以庆幸自己识破了陰謀者的骗局。」<ref name="New Internationalist 1 2004"/>

[[美茵茨大学]][[社会心理学]]系教授罗兰·伊姆霍夫（Roland Imhoff）的研究證實了上述三點。研究表明，相信某种觀點的人愈少，对阴谋论者就愈有吸引力<ref>{{cite web |last1=Imhoff |first1=Roland |title=Conspiracy Theorists Just Want to Feel Special |url=https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kg8j3/conspiracy-theorists-just-want-to-feel-special |website=motherboard.vice.com |access-date=2018-07-06 |date=2018-04-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190428135251/https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kg8j3/conspiracy-theorists-just-want-to-feel-special |archive-date=2019-04-28 |deadurl=no }}</ref>。

[[人本主义心理学|人本主义心理学家]]认为，即使陰謀論當中的陰謀者幾乎都是與己方敵對，但支持者往往能從中找到使人感到一絲安慰的元素。因為他們認為某些人一手策劃事件本身，而該些陰謀者正好控制該些事件的劇本。故此若事件有一個陰謀集團在背後操縱，那麼便有希望使之瓦解，或可以加入它們。相信一个阴谋集团的力量事實上隱含著一種肯定人類尊嚴的主張——在無意識中肯定人類要對自己的行為負責<ref name="Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln 1987">{{cite book|author1=Baigent, Michael |author2=Leigh, Richard |author3=Lincoln, Henry | title = The Messianic Legacy | publisher = Henry Holt & Co | year = 1987 | isbn = 978-0-8050-0568-4}}</ref>。

人們可能會以陰謀論來解釋社會群體中的權力關係，以及黒惡勢力本身{{efn|巴爾昆於2003年寫道：「阴谋论信念的本质在于试图界定和解释邪恶。广义來說，阴谋论认为历史是由集團式的恶魔力量控制……就我们的目的而言，『阴谋论信念』是指认为由個體或多個集團組成的組織曾經或正在秘密行動，以達到某種邪惡的目的。」{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=3}}}}<ref name="New Internationalist 1 2004">{{cite journal |author= Berlet, Chip |author-link= Chip Berlet |title= Interview: Michael Barkun |year=  2004 |url= http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_barkun.html |quote= The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter. I don't accept this, although I certainly acknowledge that there have been conspiracies. They simply don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracists attribute to them. |access-date= 2009-10-01 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090402214330/http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_barkun.html |archive-date=2009-04-02 |deadurl=no }}</ref><ref name="Turkay Nefes"/><ref name="Nefes">{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/j.1467-6443.2012.01434.x | volume=25 | issue=3 | title=The History of the Social Constructions of Dönmes (Converts)* | year=2012 | journal=Journal of Historical Sociology | pages=413–439 | last1 = Nefes | first1 = Türkay S.}}</ref>。研究者還提出了其他陰謀論的心理起源，比如投射；需要以「重大的原因去解釋重大的事件」；各類思想障碍的產物（像是偏执狂倾向），乃至患上了可以經由診斷確定的精神障礙。與將事件視作[[随机性|隨機]]、不可預知、不可解釋地發生相比，一些人更喜歡以社會政治的角度解釋事件，藉此減低不安全感<ref name="business.time.com"/><ref name="Goertzel 1994 733–744">{{cite journal | author = Goertzel | year = 1994 | title = Belief in Conspiracy Theories | doi = 10.2307/3791630 |url= http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/conspire.doc <!--| pages = 733–44--> | pages = 731–742 | access-date =2006-08-07 | jstor = 3791630 | journal = Political Psychology | volume = 15 | issue = 4 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060831210103/http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/CONSPIRE.doc | archive-date =2006-08-31 | deadurl=no }}</ref><ref name="Douglas 2008 210–222">{{cite journal |first1=Karen |last1=Douglas |first2=Robbie |last2=Sutton |year=2008 |title=The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-social-psychology_2008-04_148_2/page/210 |journal=Journal of Social Psychology |volume=148 |issue=2 |pages=210–22 |doi=10.3200/SOCP.148.2.210-222 |pmid=18512419 }}</ref><ref name="harpers=1964">{{cite book|author=Hofstadter, Richard|year=1965|title=The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays|location=New York|publisher=Alfred A. Knopf|isbn=978-0-674-65461-7|pages=32–33|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XcLSoljnmBcC&q=0674654617|access-date=2018-10-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190418133817/https://books.google.com/books?id=XcLSoljnmBcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=0674654617#v=onepage&q=This%20enemy%20seems%20to%20be%20on%20many%20counts%20a%20projection|archive-date= 2019-04-18|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="Hodapp 2008">{{cite book |title=Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies |first=Christopher |last=Hodapp |author2=Alice Von Kannon |publisher=[[約翰威立|John Wiley & Sons]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-470-18408-0 |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780470184080 }}</ref><ref name="Cohen"/>。

贝雷特和里昂表示：「陰謀論是一種典型的替罪羊敍事，其将敌人妖魔化，視之為違反公眾利益的大陰謀的一壞，同时将替罪羊奉为敲响警钟的英雄。」<ref>{{cite book
| last = Berlet
| first = Chip
| author-link = Chip Berlet
| author2 = Lyons, Matthew N.
| title = Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort
|url= https://archive.org/details/rightwingpopulis00berlrich
| publisher = Guilford Press
| location = New York
| year = 2000
| isbn = 978-1-57230-562-5
| access-date = 2019-11-09
| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20191216201705/https://archive.org/details/rightwingpopulis00berlrich
| archive-date =  2019-12-16
| deadurl=no
}}{{page needed|date=September 2011}}</ref>

===起源===
一些心理學家認為通謀論的常見根源在於找尋意義。一旦認知到某種思路，[[確認偏誤]]和對於[[認知失調]]的迴避便可能使某種信念得以固化。若陰謀論滲入了社會集體，有關信念便可能因{{link-en|大眾強化|communal reinforcement}}而得以鞏固<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Swami|first1=Viren|last2=Coles|first2=Rebecca|last3=Stieger|first3=Stefan|last4=Pietschnig|first4=Jakob|last5=Furnham|first5=Adrian|last6=Rehim|first6=Sherry|last7=Voracek|first7=Martin|date=2011|title=Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy theories|journal=British Journal of Psychology|volume=102|issue=3|pages=443–463|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02004.x|pmid=21751999|issn=2044-8295}}</ref>。

研究顯示，接受非理性阴谋论背后的潛在动机<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=van Prooijen|first1=Jan-Willem|last2=Jostmann|first2=Nils B.|date=2012-12-17|title=Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|volume=43|issue=1|pages=109–115|doi=10.1002/ejsp.1922|issn=0046-2772}}</ref>跟事件所造成的痛苦有關，這點可在[[九一一袭击事件]]上看到。此外[[曼徹斯特都會大學]]的研究亦發現<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dagnall|first1=Neil|last2=Drinkwater|first2=Kenneth|last3=Parker|first3=Andrew|last4=Denovan|first4=Andrew|last5=Parton|first5=Megan|date=2015|title=Conspiracy theory and cognitive style: a worldview|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|language=en|volume=6|page=206|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00206|pmid=25762969|pmc=4340140|issn=1664-1078}}</ref>，抱有「妄想觀念」者最有可能相信阴谋论。 研究<ref name="BrothertonFrench2014"/>还表明，人們愈受到這些非理性信念吸引，就愈不欲參與公民活動。相信陰謀論跟[[焦虑症]]、[[偏執狂]]、[[权威主义|威權]]信念有關<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bullock|first1=John G.|last2=Lenz|first2=Gabriel|date=2019-05-11|title=Partisan Bias in Surveys|url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|language=en|volume=22|issue=1|pages=325–342|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904|issn=1094-2939|access-date=2020-12-28|archive-date=2020-12-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212222529/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-050904|dead-url=no}}</ref>。

{{link-en|夸西姆·卡萨姆|Quassim Cassam}}教授认为阴谋论者之所以相信阴谋论，是因為他們的思維存有缺陷（更確切地說，是他们的思想性格存有缺陷）。他引用了哲學家{{link-en|琳達·察格岑布斯基|Linda Zagzebski}}的著作《思想的美德》（Virtues of the Mind），以此論及知性上的美德（谦虚、谨慎、用心）與惡德（轻信、大意、闭关自守）。他表示該些美德有助於正確審視事情本身，而惡德則「阻碍了有效和负责任的调查」。也就是说，那些容易相信阴谋论的人欠缺知性上的美德之餘，亦拥有某些惡德<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cassam |first1=Quassim |title=Bad Thinkers |url=https://aeon.co/essays/the-intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists |publisher=Aeon |date=2015-03-13 |access-date=2020-12-28 |archive-date=2021-02-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227043333/https://aeon.co/essays/the-intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists |dead-url=no }}</ref>。
====投射====
一些歷史學家認為陰謀論當中存有[[投射|心理投射]]的元素。此一說法認為陰謀論支持者會將自身的不良特點投射到陰謀者身上。歷史學家理查德·霍夫斯塔德（Richard Hofstadter）表示：

{{quote|这个敌人在很多方面似乎都是自我的投射；「理想我」和「自身所不欲的我」都投射到他身上。偏执風格的一个根本悖论就是模仿敌人。例如敌人可能是舉界知名的知识分子，但自己卻在學術乃至知識量上超越了他……三K党模彷了天主教，以至於身穿牧師的法衣，制定一套差不多複雜的儀式和等級制度。[[約翰·博齊協會]]模彷了共產主義者的基層及「前線」組織，並稱它將會以跟『共匪』類近的路線進行意識形態鬥爭。反共原教旨主义組織「十字軍」的发言人公开表示，他们对共产主义事业所要求的奉献精神、纪律性、战術智慧感到钦佩<ref name="harpers=1964"/>。}}

霍夫斯塔德还指出，「性自由」是他們認定的陰謀家的共同特點：「很多时候，支持者皆會在談吐上顯露出一股強烈的虐待慾望，比如，反共济会人士為虐待共济会成員此事感到喜悅」<ref name="harpers=1964"/>。

==社會學==
除了心理因素外，社会因素也有助于解释谁會相信阴谋论，以及他們會相信當中的哪些。比如選舉落敗者更傾向相信阴谋论。强调陰謀論的精英和领袖會使得思想具陰謀論傾向的追隨者趨向於相信之<ref>{{cite web |last1=Uscinski |first1=Joseph E.  |title=Conspiring for the Common Good |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/07/conspiring-for-the-common-good/ |website=Skeptical Inquirer |publisher=Center for Inquiry |access-date=2020-02-09 |date= 2019-07-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200402135711/https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/07/conspiring-for-the-common-good/ |archive-date= 2020-04-02 |deadurl=no}}</ref>。

[[克里斯托弗·希欽斯]]形容陰謀論為「民主的廢氣」<ref name="Hodapp 2008"/>：由於大量信息在人與人之間不斷流傳，故陰謀論不可避免地出現。

阴谋论可以使人在情感上得到滿足——透過責備一個支持者不從屬的集團，去使他們認為自身不用為事件負上道德或政治責任<ref>{{cite news |first=Shankar |last=Vedantam |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400618.html |title=Born With the Desire to Know the Unknown |work=The Washington Post |page=A02 |date=2006-06-05 |access-date=2006-06-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501144444/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400618.html |archive-date= 2011-05-01 |deadurl=no }}Sociologist Theodore Sasson has remarked, "Conspiracy theories explain disturbing events or social phenomena in terms of the actions of specific, powerful individuals. By providing simple explanations of distressing events—the conspiracy theory in the Arab world, for example, that the [[九一一袭击事件|11 September attacks]] were planned by the Israeli Mossad—they deflect responsibility or keep people from acknowledging that tragic events sometimes happen inexplicably."</ref>。罗杰·科恩在為《[[纽约时报]]》擇文時同樣寫道：「没有选择权的心灵；……會诉诸阴谋论，因为它是无力者的最终避难所。如果你不能改变自己的生活，那一定是有更為強大的力量控制着这个世界」<ref name="Cohen"/>。

社会历史学家霍尔格·赫维格（Holger Herwig）在研究德国对[[第一次世界大战]]起源的解释时发现：「那些最重要的事件往往最難理解，因为它们吸引了神话創造者和骗子的關注」<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wilson|first1=Keith|title=Forging the Collective Memory: Government and International Historians through Two World Wars|publisher=Berghahn Books|isbn=978-1-78238-828-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ojipBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA89|date=1996-11-01|access-date=2020-12-28|archive-date=2020-07-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729160058/https://books.google.com/books?id=ojipBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA89|dead-url=no}}</ref>。
===批判理論的影響===
受到[[马克思主义]]啟發的[[批判理論]]自1970年代開始盛行。法國社會學家[[布鲁诺·拉图尔]]認為，它有可能使得陰謀論更於大眾文化中盛行<ref name="critiquesteam">{{Citation | last = Latour | first = Bruno | author-link = Bruno Latour | title = Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. | journal = Critical Inquiry | volume = 30 | issue = 2 | pages = 225–48 | date = 2004 |url= http://www.bruno-latour.fr:80/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120916045752/http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf | archive-date = 2012-09-16 | access-date =2012-09-16 | doi = 10.1086/421123 | deadurl=no}}</ref>。

拉图尔表示學術界9成的當代社會批評都利用了以下2種方法的其中1種：「事實立場」與「童話立場」{{r|critiquesteam|page1=237}}。

* 「童話立場」：此一方法反對拜物教，认为「信仰的对象」（比如宗教、藝術）只是一門概念，而權力則被投射到这些概念上{{by whom|date=June 2020}}；拉图尔认为，使用这种方法的人存有偏誤——認為自己的固執教條「最為科學支持」。虽然在表面上，他們十分注重事实完整、方法正确，但拉图尔指出，科學方法不過是為他們的心儀理論增添一層包裝罷了。
* 「事實立場」：此一方法認為外在因素（比如經濟、性別）经常在不知不觉中支配人的一切。{{r|critiquesteam|page2=238}}

拉图尔结论道，学术界的这两种方法都导致了一种两极化而又低效率的氛围。他設问道：「你现在明白为什么擁有一顆具批判性的头脑會那麼感觉良好吗？无论你采取哪种立场，『你总是对的！』」{{r|critiquesteam|page3=238–39}}。

拉图尔指出，像[[全球暖化否定說|全球暖化否定]]者和九一一真相運動般的陰謀論者已佔據了上述的社會批評：「也许我把阴谋论看得太重了，但我担心的是，在这些『本能地懷疑』的疯狂混合体中，我察觉到许多原為社會批評所用的武器：刻薄求证、自由並無止境地使用來自社會的有力解釋」{{r|critiquesteam|page4= 230}}。
===融合性偏執===
《[[华盛顿邮报]]》記者兼[[反戰運動]]批判者迈克尔·凯利（Michael Kelly）以自創詞「融合性偏執」去代指左右派在反戰議題和[[公民自由]]上的政治融合——他表示兩方之所以站在同一立場，是因為他們皆在相信同一套陰謀論或[[反國家主義|反政府]]觀點<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/06/19/the-road-to-paranoia|title=THE ROAD TO PARANOIA|last=Kelly|first=Michael|date=1995-06-12|work=The New Yorker|access-date= 2018-04-09|issn=0028-792X|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409110230/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/06/19/the-road-to-paranoia|archive-date=2018-04-09|deadurl=no}}</ref>。

巴爾昆则借用了此一用詞，用以代指偏执陰謀論的融合——它們的傳播曾經只流於美國邊緣受眾，不過到了現代則因[[大眾媒體]]而能夠更貼近主流{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=230}}，致使20世纪末21世纪初的美国人民開始為[[聖經啟示文學|世界末日]]或[[千禧年主义|千年王國]]作準備{{sfn|Barkun|2003|pp=207, 210, 211}}。巴爾昆指出，独狼冲突与执法部门充当既有政治权力的威胁代理人有关{{sfn|Barkun|2003|pp=193, 197}}。
==阴谋论的可行性==
物理學家{{link-en|大卫·罗伯特·格莱姆斯|David Robert Grimes}}以參與的人數去計算陰謀論所指的陰謀需要多少時間揭穿<ref name="pbs_plos_one">{{cite web|last1=Barajas|first1=Joshua|title=How many people does it take to keep a conspiracy alive?|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes/|website=PBS NEWSHOUR|publisher=Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)|access-date=2016-07-22|date=2016-02-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171013022744/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/math-formula-charts-the-lifespan-of-hoaxes/|archive-date=2017-10-13|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="Grimes_PLOS_ONE">{{cite journal|last1=Grimes|first1=David R|author-link1=David Robert Grimes|title=On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs|journal=PLOS ONE|date=2016-01-26|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905|pmid=26812482|volume=11|issue=1|pmc=4728076|pages=e0147905|bibcode=2016PLoSO..1147905G}}</ref>。他以[[稜鏡計畫]]、[[塔斯基吉梅毒試驗]]、美國聯邦調查局鑑證醜聞這3件真實洩密事件的數據去計算之：

* [[阿波罗登月计划阴谋论]]所涉及的參與人數達411,000人，並會在3.68年內揭穿；
* 氣候變化陰謀所涉及的參與人數達405,000人，並會在3.70年內揭穿；
* [[接種疫苗爭議|疫苗接種陰謀]]所涉及的參與人數至少達22,000人（不包含藥廠），並會在3.15至34.78年內揭穿（視乎有多少人參與）；
* 封鎖高效治癌方法的陰謀所涉及的參與人數達714,000人，並會在3.17年內揭穿。
==政治==
哲學家[[卡尔·波普尔]]表示，[[基本歸因謬誤]]為陰謀論的核心問題，陰謀論支持者普遍認為每一個事件都是有目的、有計劃的，嚴重低估隨機和意外的影響<ref name="SciAm2013"/>。他在《[[開放社會及其敵人]]》一著中以「陰謀論社會」去形容一種把「战争、失业、贫穷、短缺等社会现象視為有權者或組織直接设计之结果」的理念<ref>{{cite book |last=Popper|first=Karl|author-link=Karl Popper|title=Open Society and Its Enemies, Book II|year=1945|publisher=Routledge and Kegan Paul|location=London|chapter=14}}</ref>。波普尔认为，[[極權主義]]建立在阴谋论之上；部落主義、[[沙文主义]]、[[种族主义]]促成了該些妄想。他亦表示陰謀家很少達到其目標<ref name="dohloo">{{cite web |url=http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books/popper_open_society.html |title=Extracts from "The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume 2: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath" by Karl Raimund Popper (Originally published 1945) |publisher=Lachlan Cranswick, quoting Karl Raimund Popper |access-date=2006-09-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060903232539/http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books/popper_open_society.html |archive-date= 2006-09-03 |deadurl=no}}</ref>。

真正的阴谋在历史上影响並不大，而且陰謀者往往需承受不可預見的後果。正如[[布魯斯·卡明斯]]指出，历史反而「被人類全體之力和龐大的集體結構所撼動」<ref name="Cumings1999">{{cite book|last = Cumings|first = Bruce|title = The Origins of the Korean War, Vol. II, The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947–1950|publisher = [[普林斯頓大學出版社|Princeton University Press]]|location = Princeton, NJ|year = 1999}}{{page needed|date=September 2011}}</ref>。

== 案例 ==
{{Original research|段落}}
=== 政治 ===
* [[新世界秩序]]：此理論認為有少數權力精英組成的秘密集團在幕後操控世界，透過各種秘密社團、兄弟會、紳士俱樂部、科研機構、非營利組織、智庫、政府部門、企業行號與許多國際組織來推動議程。其操控範圍廣布於政治、國防、金融、商業、運輸、教育、科學、資訊、電信、醫藥、食物、能源、民生、工業、宗教、媒體、娛樂、文化等領域，目標是建立少數人控制、全球一體化的專制世界政府，取代傳統的主權民族國家，搭建出一個長期穩定但不保障個人權益的社會。
* 假政變：各國政府，特別是[[美國]]政府，被指控進行虛假政變，以便在國外設置友好政府。其中一些被證實，如[[1953年伊朗政變]]，秘密政變推翻[[伊朗]]民選領導人。其他一些政變被一些人認為可能是積極支持美國政府，包括：1963年美國[[肯尼迪遇刺案|肯尼迪遇刺事件]]、[[海地历史|1991年海地政變]]、[[1992年委內瑞拉政變企圖]]、{{tsl|en|Fall of Suharto|1998年印尼革命}}、[[1999年巴基斯坦政變]]
* [[麦卡锡主义|1947年國際共產主義陰謀論]]
* [[芝加哥七人案|1968年芝加哥審判陰謀論]]
* {{tsl|en|Vast right-wing conspiracy|1998年大量右翼陰謀論}}
* [[肯尼迪遇刺案陰謀論]]：是最著名的陰謀論之一，認為美國政府某個秘密組織[[暗殺]]了甘迺迪，並且一手遮掩。這個故事拍成了[[電影]]「[[刺杀肯尼迪]]」。
* [[深層政府]]：指一個非經民選，由[[軍事工業複合體]]／金融巨頭／[[情報機構]]所組成的，為保護它們自己的既得利益，幕後真正控制國家的非法集團<ref>{{Cite book |language = en|title=Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry |url = https://archive.org/details/deepstateinsideg0000ambi|first1=Marc |last1=Ambinder |first2=D.B. |last2=Grady |publisher=Wiley |year=2013 |isbn=978-1118146682 }}</ref>。由於[[唐納·川普]]就任[[美國總統]]後的政治局勢緊張，該術語已自2017年被廣泛使用<ref>{{Cite journal |language=en |title=As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a 'Deep State' in America |author=Amanda Taub |date=2017-02-16 |journal=[[紐約時報]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html?_r=0 |access-date=2017-04-07 |archive-date=2017-04-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170405025751/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html?_r=0 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。
* 2023年[[李克强之死]]，年仅68岁，卸任[[中国国务院总理]]仅半年多的[[李克强]]因心脏病发死亡。由于中共中央总书记[[习近平]]被指大量清除异己，李克強在中国[[党和国家领导人|党政领导层]]中年事尚不算高，虽然报道提到有部分会引起心脏有关的疾病（心肌炎<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.orientaldaily.com.my/index.php/news/international/2015/03/30/76280|title=身体吃不消　李克强或无法连任|date=2015-03-30|accessdate=2023-10-27|work=馬來西亞《東方日報》|archive-date=2023-10-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029155533/https://www.orientaldaily.com.my/index.php/news/international/2015/03/30/76280|dead-url=no}}</ref>、糖尿病<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.voachinese.com/a/media-watch-likeqiang-20141229/2577418.html|title=媒体观察:李克强要下台？中国政府说No|date=2014-12-29|accessdate=2023-10-29|work=美国之音|archive-date=2023-10-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231030000921/https://www.voachinese.com/a/media-watch-likeqiang-20141229/2577418.html|dead-url=no}}</ref>、做过冠状动脉搭桥手术<ref>{{cite web |title=糖尿病患者的急性心肌梗死 |url=https://www.uptodate.com/contents/zh-Hans/acute-myocardial-infarction-patients-with-diabetes-mellitus |website=UpToDate |accessdate=2023-10-29 |date=2022-08-19 |dead-url=no }}</ref>），但逝世前并没表现明显的健康問題，以及此前有傳言李克強生前與習近平不合且權力被習近平架空<ref name="Yahoo News 2023 n812">{{cite web | title=李克強因習近平成最弱總理！ 卸任前喊「人在幹天在看」 | website=Yahoo News | date=2023-10-27 | url=https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%9D%8E%E5%85%8B%E5%BC%B7%E5%9B%A0%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3%E6%88%90%E6%9C%80%E5%BC%B1%E7%B8%BD%E7%90%86-%E5%8D%B8%E4%BB%BB%E5%89%8D%E5%96%8A-%E4%BA%BA%E5%9C%A8%E5%B9%B9%E5%A4%A9%E5%9C%A8%E7%9C%8B-021148892.html | language=zh | access-date=2023-10-27}}</ref><ref name="Yahoo News 2023 c219">{{cite web | title=李克強才剛遊敦煌今就猝逝 習近平身邊人「非死即拔官」陰謀論四起 | website=Yahoo News | date=2023-10-27 | url=https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%9D%8E%E5%85%8B%E5%BC%B7%E6%89%8D%E5%89%9B%E9%81%8A%E6%95%A6%E7%85%8C%E4%BB%8A%E5%B0%B1%E7%8C%9D%E9%80%9D-%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3%E8%BA%AB%E9%82%8A%E4%BA%BA-%E9%9D%9E%E6%AD%BB%E5%8D%B3%E6%8B%94%E5%AE%98-%E9%99%B0%E8%AC%80%E8%AB%96%E5%9B%9B%E8%B5%B7-033000229.html | language=zh | access-date=2023-10-27}}</ref><ref name="Yahoo News 2023 h895">{{cite web | title=李克強猝逝消息登熱搜第一 網友質疑死因 | website=Yahoo News | date=2023-10-27 | url=https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%9D%8E%E5%85%8B%E5%BC%B7%E7%8C%9D%E9%80%9D%E6%B6%88%E6%81%AF%E7%99%BB%E7%86%B1%E6%90%9C%E7%AC%AC-%E7%B6%B2%E5%8F%8B%E8%B3%AA%E7%96%91%E6%AD%BB%E5%9B%A0-030618494.html | language=zh | access-date=2023-10-27}}</ref>，所以有人猜測其死因和习近平有关。<ref>{{Cite news|publisher=自由時報|date=2023-10-27|title=李克強「突發心臟病」過世登熱搜第一 中網民熱議質疑死因不單純|url=https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/4471346|access-date=2023-10-27|website=自由時報電子報|language=zh-TW}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|publisher=三立新聞|date=2023-10-27|title=「非正常死亡，完全不意外！」他爆習近平最想除掉的就是李克強|url=https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=1373336|access-date=2023-10-27|website=三立新聞網|language=zh-TW}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|publisher=TVBS|title=李克強突發心臟病不單純？網質疑死因警告：胡錦濤小心了|url=https://news.tvbs.com.tw/world/2286097|access-date=2023-10-27|website=TVBS|language=zh-tw}}</ref>

=== 科技 ===
* [[加水就能跑的車子]]，阴谋论者认为，其觸犯了既得利益者之利益，而被特務機關抹殺。
* {{tsl|en|Avro Arrow|Avro Arrow}}
* {{tsl|en|Vril|Vril Society 維利協會}}
* [[誰消滅了電動車]]
* [[尼古拉·特斯拉]]
* [[太陽神卡特爾]]
* [[免費能源被打壓陰謀論]]
* [[蒙淘克計劃]]
* [[高頻主動式極光研究計劃]]
* [[化学尾迹阴谋论]]
* [[費城實驗]]
*[[MKUltra計劃]]：CIA的洗腦研究
* [[阿波羅登月計劃陰謀論]]，認為[[美國]]政府在攝影棚內製造出登陸月球的假象。
* [[通用汽車電車陰謀]]

=== 外星人 ===
* 美國軍方隱瞞論：軍方刻意向外散佈一些誇張失實的外星人謠言。久而久之，使國民覺得外星人只是無稽之談，降低普羅大眾對外星人的興趣及相信程度。
* [[納粹飛碟]]：[[納粹德國]]於[[第二次世界大戰]]期間在[[布拉格]]建立了飛行試驗基地，並研發出{{link-en|軍用飛碟|Military disc-shaped aircraft}}。而在蘇俄紅軍攻入布拉格後，納粹科學家緊急銷燬當時眾多的原型、藍圖、樣本，根據傳言，這些頂尖的科學家在戰後被帶往美國從事秘密武器的研發。此理論被[[探索频道]]拍成紀錄片《[[真實的飛碟]]》。
* [[51區]]
* [[羅斯威爾飛碟墜毀事件]]：由於美國政府對其進行情報控制，相關的小報消息与[[都會傳奇]]就成為陰謀推測的材料，著名的包括[[51區]]跟軍方的新型秘密飛行器。
* 外星技術：近代的一些科學成果其實是參考、模仿或學習一些外星智慧生命的產物，因此某些組織或政府想隱藏當中的一些資料，特別是為面對國與國之間的軍事和技術競賽。
* [[黑衣人]]
* [[MJ-12]]

=== 災難和末日 ===
==== [[SARS]] ====
{{main|SARS陰謀論}}
[[嚴重急性呼吸道症候群]]（SARS）在2002年至2003年間[[SARS事件|爆發疫情]]時，因其源於[[中國南方]]並向外蔓延至世界各國，故有傳言指出SARS是美国政府有意或意外外流的[[生物武器]]，在SARS發生期間便有民眾私下議論此一可能，因為他們認為SARS是[[广东]]沿海居民長期嗜食[[野味]]，因而感染的一种类似[[禽流感]]的变异生命体[[细菌]]；但2008年[[台湾]][[中華民國國家安全局|國安局]]局長[[蔡朝明]]在[[立法院]]接受質詢時，曾聲稱SARS可能為[[中国政府]]的生物武器，SARS的疫情來去如風，而中国大陆受害程度之高，令好多人有所猜測。

==== [[911恐怖攻擊]] ====
{{main|九一一事件陰謀論}}
有論者認為[[美國政府]]高層與大商家覬覦[[伊拉克]]境內的[[石油]]儲備，所以自導自演是次[[恐怖襲擊]]，不惜犧牲國民性命，更誣衊伊拉克境內有大殺傷力武器以便決定全面出兵。論者對[[世界貿易中心 (1973年至2001年)|世貿大樓]]的襲擊，有以下懷疑：

# 飛機撞擊大樓後漏出的燃油所燃燒的高溫，並不足以燒熔鋼筋以至影響全棟大廈的結構。
# 建築歷史上的所有鋼筋大樓，並沒有一棟是因為燃燒而倒塌。
# 大樓倒塌的速度類似裝有炸藥的拆樓解體。
# 世貿一號及二號大樓遭飛機撞擊，七號大樓並沒有遭到任何有記錄的襲擊，卻在同一日與一號及二號大樓一同倒塌。
# 世貿大樓群的擁有者Larry Silverstein於911襲擊前幾個月為大樓更新99年期租約，及購買大額損毀賠償，指明包括恐怖襲擊。
# 時任紐約市長[[朱利安尼]]迅速地將世貿殘骸當作廢物運出國外，當中有否炸藥引致的爆炸痕跡已經不能被鑑別。

亦有論者認為是次恐怖襲擊的幕後策劃係[[以色列]][[猶太復國主義者]]。目的是製做世界混亂，國與國甚至人與人之間互不信任，從而販賣各種大小武器圖利為副，最終實現統一世界為主。

==== [[2019冠状病毒病]] ====
{{main|2019冠状病毒病阴谋论}}

=== 體育 ===
每一屆世界盃都必然有至少一組被譽為[[死亡之組]]，2006年世界盃抽籤，[[阿根廷國家足球隊|阿根廷]]被編入被譽為'''死亡之組'''的C組，同組對手包括歐洲勁旅[[荷蘭國家足球隊|荷蘭]]、非洲黑馬[[科特迪瓦國家足球隊|科特迪瓦]]和pot4唯一一隊歐洲隊[[塞爾維亞和黑山國家足球隊|塞黑]]，阿根廷傳媒揚言有幕後黑手做小動作，將阿根廷兩度被抽進死亡之組。而[[意大利]]傳媒亦認為德國前國家隊隊長[[馬圖斯]]將pot4中實力較強的[[美國]]抽中和意大利同組是有內情。

=== 宗教 ===
[[撒但]]<ref>查目前比較流行的[[國語和合本]][[聖經]]、[[新標點和合本]][[聖經]]、[[和合本修訂版]][[聖經]]、[[現代中文譯本]][[聖經]]，還有比較古老的[[光緒]]19年[[福州]]美華[[書局]]活板文理[[聖經]]、[[光緒]]34年[[上海]]大[[美國]][[聖經]]會[[官話]]串珠[[聖經]]、[[宣統]]3年[[聖經]]公會的文理[[聖經]]，Satan均譯作「撒但」，不作「撒旦」</ref>是[[基督教]]對[[魔鬼]]的名稱。由於[[猶太人]]相信“[[666]]”這個數字是魔鬼的代表，有不少物品並認為與魔鬼崇拜有聯繫。例如：[[條碼]]的“6”字無論從左往右或是從右往左掃描都是一樣，所以亦被用來當作條碼的分隔線。這樣，每一組條碼都會兩個“6”字包著。所以因此而說每一個條碼都隱藏著“[[獸名數目]]”，並聲言當[[世界末日]]來臨之時，魔鬼會要求每個人在額上印上一個條碼。

=== 經濟 ===
国际大財團在背後壟斷了國家經濟以及政治的主導權，为自己图谋暴利。宋鸿兵的《[[货币战争]]》对此详细描述。
== 參見 ==
* [[都會傳奇]]
* [[訴諸恐懼]]
* [[訴諸可能]]
* [[鬼祟謬誤]]
* [[滑坡謬誤]]
* [[抵消假設]]
* [[時代精神運動]]
* [[秘密结社]]
* [[偽科學]]
* [[偽學術]]
* [[後真相]]
* [[後真相政治]]

==註釋==
{{notelist}}
==參考文獻==
{{reflist|2}}
== 延伸閱讀 ==
{{refbegin|35em}}
* {{Cite book|last=Aaronovitch|first=David|title=Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History|year=2010|publisher=Riverhead|isbn=978-1-59448-895-5|url=https://archive.org/details/voodoohistoriesr0000aaro}}
* {{cite book | editor = Arnold, Gordon B. | year = 2008 | title = Conspiracy Theory in Film, Television, and Politics | url = https://archive.org/details/conspiracytheory0000arno | page = 200 | publisher = Praeger Publishers | isbn = 978-0-275-99462-4}}
* Burnett, Thom.  ''Conspiracy Encyclopedia: The Encyclopedia of Conspiracy Theories''
* Butter, Michael, and Peter Knight. "Bridging the great divide: conspiracy theory research for the 21st century." ''Diogenes'' (2016): 0392192116669289.  [http://hssfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/KX-48-20-abstracts.pdf online] {{Wayback|url=http://hssfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/KX-48-20-abstracts.pdf |date=20201126115747 }}
* {{cite book|author=Chase, Alston|year=2003|title=Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist|location=New York|publisher=W. W. Norton|isbn=978-0-393-02002-1|url=https://archive.org/details/harvardunabomber00chas}}
* {{cite book | editor = Coward, Barry |year = 2004 | title = Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Europe: From the Waldensians to the French Revolution | publisher = Ashgate Publishing | isbn = 978-0-7546-3564-2}}
* {{cite journal|date=2009-10-23|title=Conspiracy Theories|journal=CQ Researcher|volume=19|issue=37|pages=885–908|issn=1056-2036|url=http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/news/Conspiracy%20Theories.pdf|access-date=2017-02-08|archive-date=2010-12-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101215023612/http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/news/Conspiracy%20Theories.pdf|dead-url=yes}}
* {{cite web | last1 = Cziesche | first1 = Dominik | author2 = Jürgen Dahlkamp, Ulrich Fichtner, Ulrich Jaeger, Gunther Latsch, Gisela Leske, Max F. Ruppert | year = 2003 | url = https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/cover-story-panoply-of-the-absurd-a-265160.html | title = Panoply of the Absurd | work = Der Spiegel | access-date = 2006-06-09 | archive-date = 2012-03-23 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120323055218/http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html | dead-url = no }}
* De Graaf, Beatrice and Zwierlein, Cornel (eds.) [https://www.gesis.org/en/hsr/full-text-archive/2013/381-security-and-conspiracy/ ''Security and Conspiracy in History, 16th to 21st Century''] {{Wayback|url=https://www.gesis.org/en/hsr/full-text-archive/2013/381-security-and-conspiracy/ |date=20201204203852 }}. Historical Social Research 38, Special Issue, 2013
* Fleming, Chris and Emma A. Jane. ''Modern Conspiracy: The Importance of Being Paranoid''. New York and London: Bloomsbury, 2014. {{ISBN|978-1-62356-091-1}}.
* Goertzel, Ted. "Belief in conspiracy theories." ''Political Psychology'' (1994): 731–742.  [http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/CONSPIRE.doc online] {{Wayback|url=http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/CONSPIRE.doc |date=20060831210103 }}
* Harris, Lee. [https://web.archive.org/web/20130114231139/http://american.com/archive/2013/january/the-trouble-with-conspiracy-theories ''"The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories,"''] The American, 2013-01-12.
* Hofstadter, Richard. ''The paranoid style in American politics'' (1954). [https://web.archive.org/web/20170116220729/http://www.fuminyang.com/michelle/Paranoid%20Style.pdf online]
* {{cite book|author=Johnson, George|year=1983|title=Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics|location=Los Angeles|publisher=Jeremy P. Tarcher|isbn=978-0-87477-275-3|url=https://archive.org/details/architectsoffear00john}}
* {{cite book |author1=McConnachie, James |author2=Tudge, Robin | year = 2005 | title = The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories |url=https://archive.org/details/roughguidetocons0000mcco_l5y7 | publisher = Rough Guides | isbn = 978-1-84353-445-7}}
* {{cite book|author=Melley, Timothy|year=1999|title=Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America|location=Ithaca, New York|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-0-8014-8606-7}}
* {{cite web |first = James B. |last = Meigs |year = 2006 |url= http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html |title = The Conspiracy Industry |work = Popular Mechanics |publisher =Hearst Communications|access-date =2006-10-13 |deadurl=yes|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20061024062122/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html |archive-date = 2006-10-24 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Nefes | first1 = Türkay Salim | year = 2012 | title = The history of the social constructions of Dönmes | journal = Journal of Historical Sociology | volume = 25 | issue = 3| pages = 413–39 | doi = 10.1111/j.1467-6443.2012.01434.x }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Nefes | first1 = Türkay Salim | year = 2013 | title = 'Political parties' perceptions and uses of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Turkey' | journal = The Sociological Review | volume = 61 | issue = 2| pages = 247–64 | doi = 10.1111/1467-954X.12016 }}
* Oliver, J. Eric, and Thomas J. Wood. "Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style (s) of mass opinion." ''American Journal of Political Science'' 58.4 (2014): 952–966.  [http://hon3397p.wp.txstate.edu/files/2015/08/OliverWood.pdf online] {{Wayback|url=http://hon3397p.wp.txstate.edu/files/2015/08/OliverWood.pdf |date=20180404065641 }}
* {{cite news |last = Parsons |first = Charlotte |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561199.stm |title = Why we need conspiracy theories |work = BBC News – Americas |publisher = BBC |date = 2001-09-24 |accessdate = 2017-02-08 |archive-date = 2006-07-01 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060701104649/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561199.stm |dead-url = no }}
* {{cite book|author=Pipes, Daniel|year=1998|title=The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy|url=https://archive.org/details/hiddenhand00dani|location=New York|publisher=St. Martin's Press|isbn=978-0-312-17688-4|}}
* {{cite book|author=Pipes, Daniel|year=1997|title=Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From|url=https://archive.org/details/conspiracy00dani|location=New York|publisher=The Free Press|isbn=978-0-684-87111-0}}
* {{cite journal |title=Popper Revisited, or What Is Wrong With Conspiracy Theories? |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_philosophy-of-the-social-sciences_1995-03_25_1/page/3 |journal=Philosophy of the Social Sciences |year=1995 |last=Pigden |first=Charles |volume=25 |issue=1 |pages=3–34 |doi=10.1177/004839319502500101 }}
* {{cite book|author=Sagan, Carl|author-link=Carl Sagan|year=1996|title=The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark|url=https://archive.org/details/demonhauntedworl0000unse|location=New York|publisher=The Random House|isbn=978-0-394-53512-8}}
* Slosson, W. [https://archive.org/stream/unpopularreview07newy#page/394/mode/2up ''"The 'Conspiracy' Superstition,"''] The Unpopular Review, Vol. VII, N°. 14, 1917.
* Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. "Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures." ''Journal of Political Philosophy'' 17.2 (2009): 202–227. [http://www.ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Sunstein-Conspiracy-Theories-2009.pdf  online] {{Wayback|url=http://www.ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Sunstein-Conspiracy-Theories-2009.pdf |date=20201108091722 }}
* Uscinski, Joseph E. and Joseph M. Parent, ''American Conspiracy Theories'' (2014) [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199351813/ excerpt] {{Wayback|url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199351813/ |date=20210220230710 }}
* Uscinski, Joseph E. "The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016" [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/conspiracy-theories-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-214183  ''POLITICO Magazine'' (2016-08-22)] {{Wayback|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/conspiracy-theories-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-214183 |date=20160906085043 }}
* {{cite book|author1=Vankin, Jonathan|author2=John Whalen|year=2004|title=The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time|url=https://archive.org/details/80greatestconspi0000vank|location=New York|publisher=Citadel Press|isbn=978-0-8065-2531-0}}
* Wood, Gordon S. "Conspiracy and the paranoid style: causality and deceit in the eighteenth century." ''William and Mary Quarterly''   (1982): 402–441. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1919580 in jstor] {{Wayback|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1919580 |date=20201128213417 }}
{{refend}}

== 外部链接 ==
{{Wiktionary|conspiracy theory}}
{{Commons category|Conspiracy theories}}
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/conspira/ Conspiracy Theories] {{Wayback|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/conspira/ |date=20210126212254 }}, ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''

{{-}}
{{阴谋论}}
{{Pseudoscience}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:歷史學]]
[[Category:心理学]]
[[Category:社會學]]
[[Category:陰謀論| ]]