A recent study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that people who are highly active in politics and also believe in conspiracy theories are the most likely to justify political violence. The findings provide evidence that conspiracy beliefs alone might not lead to violence, but they can become dangerous when combined with active political engagement. This implies that spreading unverified narratives among already mobilized political groups tends to create a volatile environment.
Political participation is generally seen as a healthy part of a democratic society. Standard political engagement, known as normative political action, includes behaviors that follow social rules and the law. Examples include voting in elections, joining a political party, or participating in peaceful protests.
Sometimes peaceful political actions escalate into illegal or violent behavior, which scientists call nonnormative political action. Examples of this include sending death threats, demolishing property, and physically clashing with law enforcement. The January 6 Capitol Hill riots in 2021 provided a real-world context to explore this shift.
During this event, a mob stormed the United States Capitol building to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The scientists wanted to understand the specific factors that might push standard political engagement toward the justification of such violent acts. The researchers noted that many individuals involved in the riot were influenced by conspiracy theories.
“What originally motivated this study was our interest in disentangling the relationship between conspiracy theories and political violence. Although these two phenomena have been linked in specific cases and are often discussed together in media coverage, it remains unclear when conspiracy beliefs actually translate into support for violence. Rather than simply asking whether conspiracy theories are associated with political violence, we wanted to understand under what conditions this link becomes stronger,” said study author Jesse Koster, a PhD candidate at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
The researchers conducted two separate studies. In the first study, the scientists surveyed 372 United States citizens who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 election. They specifically chose this group to ensure the participants shared a similar political identity with the individuals involved in the Capitol riots.
The survey measured participants on several specific scales. It assessed their general conspiracy mentality, which is a broad tendency to assume hidden plots are behind major world events. It also measured their specific belief in the conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was rigged to favor the Democratic Party.
Additionally, the researchers asked participants about their standard political participation over the past year. This included behaviors such as how often they attended political rallies or contacted politicians. Finally, the researchers measured the extent to which participants justified the violence at the Capitol building, such as agreeing that it was acceptable for rioters to arm themselves.
During their analysis, the scientists controlled for demographic factors like age, gender, education level, and general political orientation. The results of the first study showed that both standard political participation and conspiracy beliefs independently predicted support for the riots.
The interaction between these two factors provided the most detailed insight. An interaction effect occurs when the impact of one variable depends on the level of another variable. In this case, participants who reported high levels of standard political activity and also held strong conspiracy beliefs were the most likely to justify the violence. This pattern was true for both general conspiracy mentalities and specific beliefs about election fraud.
“In Study 1, we included a range of exploratory individual differences and behavioural variables to examine what might shape this relationship,” Koster said. “After finding a significant interaction between political participation and conspiracy beliefs in predicting justification of violence, we set out to test this interaction more directly in Study 2.”
The researchers recruited a new sample of 751 participants who also voted for Trump in the 2020 election. They used an experimental design to see how exposure to different information affected the participants. Experimental designs help scientists look for cause and effect relationships by changing one specific detail while keeping everything else the same.
Participants first answered questions about their baseline political participation. Then, they were randomly assigned to read a short, fabricated blog post about the 2020 election. Half of the group read an article supporting the theory of widespread election fraud, while the other half read an article denying those claims.
After reading the text, participants completed a brief check to ensure they understood the article. They then answered questions measuring their current belief in the election fraud conspiracy and their views on the Capitol riots. The scientists again controlled for basic demographic information during their statistical analysis.
The scientists found that the reading exercise did slightly alter the participants’ belief in the election conspiracy. However, simply reading the conspiracy supporting text did not directly increase overall support for political violence across the whole group. The researchers noted that people generally had stable opinions that were not easily swayed by a single brief article.
Yet, similar to the first study, a specific interaction emerged in the data. The link between active political participation and the justification of violence was much stronger among those who were exposed to the text promoting the election fraud conspiracy theory. This suggests that exposure to unverified plots tends to prime already active individuals to view aggressive actions as acceptable.
“The main takeaway is that conspiracy beliefs alone are not necessarily enough to predict support for political violence,” Koster told PsyPost. “Our findings suggest that people who both strongly endorse conspiracy theories and are highly politically active are most likely to justify political violence.”
“Importantly, this pattern seems especially likely when the conspiracy narrative and the violent event are ideologically aligned. This implies that spreading conspiracy theories within politically mobilized groups could be particularly dangerous, especially when influential figures promote narratives that resonate with their audience’s political identity.”
While these findings offer insight into the mechanics of political unrest, the researchers pointed out a few limitations. First, the study focused exclusively on voters aligned with one specific political candidate. This targeted approach helps explain the Capitol riots, but it means the results might not perfectly translate to other political groups or different countries.
An average reader should not misinterpret the findings to mean that all political activists are prone to violence. The research specifically highlights the combination of high political activity and deep belief in unverified plots as the primary risk factor. The scientists also noted that wanting political change did not predict violence on its own, suggesting that active participation is a key ingredient.
In addition, the studies measured the justification of violence on a survey rather than observing actual violent behavior in the real world. Measuring real-world violence presents significant ethical and practical challenges for scientists.
Future research could explore how these factors interact in different cultural contexts or during protests related to other ideological movements. Scientists might also look into how highly active citizens help spread conspiracy theories on social media platforms. Understanding these dynamics could help society find ways to encourage healthy political engagement while preventing the escalation of aggressive behaviors.
The study, “The Roles of Conspiracy Theories and Political Participation on Justifying Violence in the Capitol Hill Riots,” was authored by Jesse Koster, Fengyu Dou, Naomi Dol, Yuan Ning, and Jan-Willem van Prooijen.
