Belief in a Norm-Consistent Climate Policy Conspiracy Theory and Non-Normative Collective Action

Abstract

Believing in conspiracy theories is connected to support for non-normative collective action. One explanation might be that this is due to both being non-normative. Alternatively, it might be the case that non-normative action appears justified based on what conspiracy theories alleging harm to a personally relevant group due to powerholders’ secret actions imply about social reality. To test this assumption, we focus on the belief in a norm-consistent (i.e., popular and plausible) climate policy conspiracy theory alleging that powerful groups (i.e., politicians and the business sector) act without public oversight, leading to climate policies that suit their interests but are harmful to the public. Across three studies—one using a quota-based German sample and two preregistered replications (N_total = 1257)—we investigate how the belief in such a theory relates to the endorsement of non-normative collective action, and test whether this relationship also emerges for the belief in a norm-inconsistent (i.e., implausible and unpopular) climate policy conspiracy theory suggesting a similar social reality (Study 3). Our data show that beliefs in both norm-consistent and norm-inconsistent climate policy conspiracy theories correlate positively with support for non-normative collective action, while only the belief in a norm-consistent climate policy conspiracy theory was related to normative collective action. In contrast, a stronger predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories (i.e., conspiracy mentality), albeit positively correlated with belief in a norm-consistent climate policy conspiracy theory, was related to lower support for non-normative collective action serving climate protection.