Are conspiracy theories popular because of their creativity? A new study suggests that certain common elements present in conspiracy theory narratives might help explain the successful spread of these beliefs. Publishing their work in the Journal of Creative Behavior, researchers have found that while conspiracy theory narratives tend to lack the fluidity and flexibility typically associated with truly creative works, they do exhibit certain features of creativity.
“Despite being often blatantly false, conspiracy theories are quite popular and entertaining,” explained study author Alessandro Miani, a research associate at the School of Psychological Science at the University of Bristol. “In fact, whether you are a conspiracy believer or not, conspiracy theories are a great topic for cocktail parties. Studies show that creative writing is persuasive and so we wondered whether conspiracy theories are creative products because creativity could explain their popularity.”
At the heart of the study was the LOCO corpus, a comprehensive and large-scale database of texts. This corpus contains a diverse collection of more than 96,000 documents sourced from both conspiracy-centric websites and mainstream news platforms. By comparing these two types of sources, the researchers aimed to isolate the unique linguistic features of conspiracy theory narratives.
The study zeroed in on nominal compounds – complex expressions made up of two or more nouns. These compounds are often pivotal in conveying intricate ideas succinctly, making them a crucial element of linguistic creativity. For instance, phrases like “climate change” or “government surveillance” encapsulate broad concepts in a compact form. The final data set included 1,713,568 compounds, of which 436,376 were unique compounds.
To extract and analyze these nominal compounds, the research team employed computational linguistic tools. Several measures were employed to assess the creativity of the compounds:
- Originality: The team looked at how novel and rare the compounds were in the conspiracy theory texts compared to mainstream texts.
- Divergence: This measure assessed the semantic distance between the components of a compound. Greater divergence indicated more creative use of language, as it showed the ability to connect more distantly related concepts.
- Complexity: Both lexical and structural sophistication of the compounds were analyzed. This included assessing the age of acquisition of the words used and the length of the compounds.
- Fluency and Flexibility: The study also measured how frequently these compounds were used (fluency) and the variety in their usage (flexibility).
Higher Creativity in Compound Generation in Conspiracy Theories
The researchers found that conspiracy theory texts exhibited higher levels of creativity in the generation of nominal compounds compared to mainstream texts.
- Divergence: One of the most notable findings was that conspiracy theory texts demonstrated a higher degree of divergence in their nominal compounds. This means that the compounds in conspiracy theory texts tended to combine more semantically distant concepts, reflecting a creative effort to link ideas that are not usually associated with each other. This was evident from the higher semantic distance and metaphorical relationship between the components of the compounds.
- Originality: Conspiracy theory narratives also exhibited a higher level of originality in their use of nominal compounds. The compounds in these texts were rarer and more novel compared to those in mainstream texts. This suggests that conspiracy theory creators often venture into less explored linguistic territories, crafting phrases that are unique and less commonly used.
- Complexity: The study also found that the compounds in conspiracy theory texts were more lexically and structurally complex. This implies that the language of conspiracy theories tends to be more sophisticated, potentially making it seem more authoritative or scientifically grounded.
Lower Creativity in Compound Use in Conspiracy Theories
Despite the creativity observed in the generation of nominal compounds, the researchers found that the use of these compounds in conspiracy theory narratives was less creative in certain respects.
- Fluency: Conspiracy theory texts showed lower fluency, meaning that they used creative compounds less frequently throughout the texts. This could indicate a more repetitive or less diverse linguistic style.
- Flexibility: Flexibility in compound use was also lower in conspiracy theory texts. This was reflected in both lexical and topical diversity. Conspiracy theory narratives tended to use a narrower range of compounds, and these compounds covered a more limited set of topics. This finding suggests a certain rigidity in how ideas are connected and presented in conspiracy theory narratives.
No Overall Difference in Creativity
When combining all these factors, the researchers concluded that there was no significant overall difference in creativity between conspiracy theory and mainstream texts. This suggests that while conspiracy theory texts do exhibit certain creative elements, particularly in the generation of novel and divergent compounds, they do not necessarily outshine mainstream texts in terms of overall creativity.
The findings from this study shed light on the nuanced ways in which conspiracy theory narratives are constructed. The higher divergence and originality in compound generation suggest a deliberate effort to create novel and unconventional narratives. This could be a strategy to capture attention and differentiate from mainstream narratives. However, the lower fluency and flexibility in the use of these compounds point to a certain rigidity in the narrative structure, possibly reflecting the entrenched beliefs and repetitive themes common in conspiracy theories.
“At least by analyzing patterns of word formation, conspiracy texts are not creative: they show patterns of creativity (e.g., when creating new words) but lack the flexibility typically observed in creativity (e.g., on the rigid use of these new words). So, words are formed by connecting distantly related concepts, resulting in greater originality, divergence, and sophistication, but are often repeated in different contexts, showing a certain degree of rigidity.”
The study, however, is not without its limitations. The focus on nominal compounds means other aspects of language and creativity were not explored. Also, the texts analyzed were likely written by specialist writers, which might not represent the broader population of conspiracy theory creators or believers.
“We analyzed texts from websites, likely produced by specialist writers, and we cannot make conclusions about cognitive styles or language of individuals believing in conspiracy theories. It’s important to note that conspiracy narratives found in websites can be written for persuasive goals that do not necessarily overlap with belief.”
Future research could expand on these findings by exploring other lexical categories or narrative structures. Additionally, analyzing texts produced by individuals with varying degrees of belief in conspiracy theories could provide further insights. Employing data-driven machine learning techniques might also help in assessing the relative contributions of individual lexical markers more comprehensively.
The study, “Loose and Tight: Creative Formation but Rigid Use of Nominal Compounds in Conspiracist Texts“, was authored by Alessandro Miani, Lonneke van der Plas, and Adrian Bangerter.
