More research is certainly needed before using counterfactual thinking to tackle conspiracy theories in the field, but our paper provides a promising first step.

Again, if you want to know more, read the paper here: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

n/n

We also find that high conspiracy mentality:
- Makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines)
- Reduces reading times for conspiracy articles (but not non-conspiracy articles)
- Does not change the effects of counterfactual thinking manipulations

5/n

3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles

4/n

Key findings:

1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.

2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.
3/n

If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

Below is a summary of the most important findings.

2/n

More research is certainly needed before using counterfactual thinking to tackle conspiracy theories in the field, but our paper provides a promising first step.

Again, read the paper here if you want to know more: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

n/n

We also find that high conspiracy mentality:
- Makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines)
- Reduces reading times for conspiracy articles (but not non-conspiracy articles)
- Does not shape the effects of counterfactual thinking manipulations

5/n

3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles

4/n

Key findings:

1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.

2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.
3/n

If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

Below is a summary of the most important findings.

2/n

While more research is needed before using counterfactual thinking in the field, our findings offer a promising first step toward reducing conspiracy engagement.

n/n

We also find that being drawn to conspiracy theories (i.e., high conspiracy mentality) makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines) and spend more time reading conspiracy articles (but not less time reading non-conspiracy articles).

5/n

3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles

4/n

Key findings:

1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.

2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.

3/n

If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

Below is a summary of the most important findings.

2/n

Congratulations! Sounds like a highly interesting paper!