A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories

Abstract

Sixty-four participants were asked to read one of four variations on a vignette that reported the assassination or attempted assassination of a hypothetical President and then to rate the likelihood that each of eight statements relating to the vignettes was accurate. Participants were more likely to endorse a conspiracy theory to account for events when the consequences were major (the President dies) rather than comparatively minor (the President survives). Levels of belief in real-world conspiracy theories did not relate to this inference-making process even though participants whose level of belief in conspiracy theories was high were more likely to doubt the veracity of the reported details of the event.