Mikey Biddlestone
@mikeybiddlestone.bsky.social
Research Associate @COSPIRACY_FX @KentPsychology @UniKent. Studying Misinformation | Conspiracy Beliefs | Political Psychology (he/him).
Merci! Was so much fun to do this paper actually, hope you enjoy!
September 9, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Merci! Was so much fun to do this paper actually, hope you enjoy!
Once again, the paper can be found open access here 👉 doi.org/10.1111/bjop...
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.7…
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Once again, the paper can be found open access here 👉 doi.org/10.1111/bjop...
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
I would like to thank my fantastic co-authors: Ricky Green, @dtoribio.bsky.social, Dylan de Gourville, Robbie M. Sutton, & Karen M. Douglas! 11/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
I would like to thank my fantastic co-authors: Ricky Green, @dtoribio.bsky.social, Dylan de Gourville, Robbie M. Sutton, & Karen M. Douglas! 11/12
This adds nuance: interventions may not always need to disprove conspiracy theories outright. Sometimes, redirecting suspicion toward the real conspiracies behind misinformation might be enough 10/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
This adds nuance: interventions may not always need to disprove conspiracy theories outright. Sometimes, redirecting suspicion toward the real conspiracies behind misinformation might be enough 10/12
Implication: Even if we can’t directly reduce conspiracy beliefs, reframing them as the product of real, documented collusion to spread misinformation could engage resistant audiences and still support healthier, pro-social behaviour 9/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Implication: Even if we can’t directly reduce conspiracy beliefs, reframing them as the product of real, documented collusion to spread misinformation could engage resistant audiences and still support healthier, pro-social behaviour 9/12
And crucially:
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
And crucially:
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
Importantly, meta-conspiracy beliefs were positively linked to intentions (e.g. vaccinating, reducing carbon footprint). Indirect path models showed positive indirect effects of our intervention on these intentions via meta-conspiracy beliefs 7/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Importantly, meta-conspiracy beliefs were positively linked to intentions (e.g. vaccinating, reducing carbon footprint). Indirect path models showed positive indirect effects of our intervention on these intentions via meta-conspiracy beliefs 7/12
Results:
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Results:
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
Two preregistered studies tested this:
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Two preregistered studies tested this:
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
Why this approach?
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Why this approach?
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
Enter: Fighting fire with fire.
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Enter: Fighting fire with fire.
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
Standard prebunking warns people about manipulation, but what if those with entrenched conspiracy beliefs are more resistant to this intervention messaging?
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Standard prebunking warns people about manipulation, but what if those with entrenched conspiracy beliefs are more resistant to this intervention messaging?
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12
Once again, the paper can be found open access here 👉 doi.org/10.1111/bjop...
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.7…
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Once again, the paper can be found open access here 👉 doi.org/10.1111/bjop...
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
#Misinformation #ConspiracyTheories #Prebunking #ClimateChange #COVID19 12/12
I would like to thank my fantastic co-authors: Ricky Green, @dtoribio.bsky.social, Dylan de Gourville, Robbie M. Sutton, & Karen M. Douglas! 11/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
I would like to thank my fantastic co-authors: Ricky Green, @dtoribio.bsky.social, Dylan de Gourville, Robbie M. Sutton, & Karen M. Douglas! 11/12
This adds nuance: interventions may not always need to disprove conspiracy theories outright. Sometimes, redirecting suspicion toward the real conspiracies behind misinformation might be enough 10/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
This adds nuance: interventions may not always need to disprove conspiracy theories outright. Sometimes, redirecting suspicion toward the real conspiracies behind misinformation might be enough 10/12
Implication: Even if we can’t directly reduce conspiracy beliefs, reframing them as the product of real, documented collusion to spread misinformation could engage resistant audiences and still support healthier, pro-social behaviour 9/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Implication: Even if we can’t directly reduce conspiracy beliefs, reframing them as the product of real, documented collusion to spread misinformation could engage resistant audiences and still support healthier, pro-social behaviour 9/12
And crucially:
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
And crucially:
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
🔥 “Fighting fire with fire” worked regardless of prior conspiracy mentality or climate beliefs.
⚠️ Standard prebunking only helped those lower in conspiracy mentality / higher in climate acceptance.
8/12
Importantly, meta-conspiracy beliefs were positively linked to intentions (e.g. vaccinating, reducing carbon footprint). Indirect path models showed positive indirect effects of our intervention on these intentions via meta-conspiracy beliefs 7/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Importantly, meta-conspiracy beliefs were positively linked to intentions (e.g. vaccinating, reducing carbon footprint). Indirect path models showed positive indirect effects of our intervention on these intentions via meta-conspiracy beliefs 7/12
Results:
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Results:
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
❌ Did not reduce belief in specific conspiracy theories.
✅ Increased belief in plausible meta-conspiracies.
✅ Did not backfire—no increase in conspiracy beliefs.
✅ Meta-conspiracy beliefs were negatively correlated with specific conspiracy beliefs 6/12
Two preregistered studies tested this:
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Two preregistered studies tested this:
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
Study 1: COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (N = 720)
Study 2: Climate change conspiracy theories (N = 1077)
5/12
Why this approach?
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Why this approach?
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
Because awareness of such meta-conspiracies may sow doubt about original conspiracy theories among conspiracy believers by offering an alternative conspiacy narrative 4/12
Enter: Fighting fire with fire.
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Enter: Fighting fire with fire.
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
Instead of only warning about manipulation, we introduced plausible meta-conspiracies—that conspiracy theories themselves are deliberately spread through secret collusion (e.g. fossil fuel companies, hostile states) to mislead the public 3/12
Standard prebunking warns people about manipulation, but what if those with entrenched conspiracy beliefs are more resistant to this intervention messaging?
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12
September 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Standard prebunking warns people about manipulation, but what if those with entrenched conspiracy beliefs are more resistant to this intervention messaging?
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12
We asked: could a different style of prebunking work better? 2/12