没有证据的不公正:阴谋论在社会正义研究中的独特作用。

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Social Justice Research Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-28 DOI:10.1007/s11211-021-00376-x
Jan-Willem van Prooijen
{"title":"没有证据的不公正:阴谋论在社会正义研究中的独特作用。","authors":"Jan-Willem van Prooijen","doi":"10.1007/s11211-021-00376-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conspiracy theories are widespread and have a profound impact on society. The present contribution proposes that conspiracy theories are explanatory narratives that necessarily contain justice judgments, as they include attributions of blame and accusations of unethical or criminal conduct. Conspiratorial narratives also are mental simulations, however, and may elicit genuine feelings of injustice also without evidence of actual malpractice. Indeed, conspiracy theories sometimes describe unfair events that are unlikely to have occurred, unethical authorities that might not actually exist, and so on. Here I propose two complementary processes that stimulate belief in evidence-free conspiracy theories: (1) Existential threats instigate biased mental processing and motivated reasoning, that jointly promote an alternative perception of reality; and (2) group allegiances shape how people perceive, interpret, and remember facts to highlight the immoral qualities of competing outgroups. Due to these processes, conspiracy theories elicit a set of distinct reactions such as poor health choices and rejection of science. Moreover, evidence-free conspiracy theories require interventions beyond traditional approaches to install justice principles, such as debunking falsehoods and reducing polarized intergroup distinctions. I conclude that the scientific study of conspiracy theories is part of, and has a unique place in, social justice research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47602,"journal":{"name":"Social Justice Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8477633/pdf/","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Injustice Without Evidence: The Unique Role of Conspiracy Theories in Social Justice Research.\",\"authors\":\"Jan-Willem van Prooijen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11211-021-00376-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Conspiracy theories are widespread and have a profound impact on society. The present contribution proposes that conspiracy theories are explanatory narratives that necessarily contain justice judgments, as they include attributions of blame and accusations of unethical or criminal conduct. Conspiratorial narratives also are mental simulations, however, and may elicit genuine feelings of injustice also without evidence of actual malpractice. Indeed, conspiracy theories sometimes describe unfair events that are unlikely to have occurred, unethical authorities that might not actually exist, and so on. Here I propose two complementary processes that stimulate belief in evidence-free conspiracy theories: (1) Existential threats instigate biased mental processing and motivated reasoning, that jointly promote an alternative perception of reality; and (2) group allegiances shape how people perceive, interpret, and remember facts to highlight the immoral qualities of competing outgroups. Due to these processes, conspiracy theories elicit a set of distinct reactions such as poor health choices and rejection of science. Moreover, evidence-free conspiracy theories require interventions beyond traditional approaches to install justice principles, such as debunking falsehoods and reducing polarized intergroup distinctions. I conclude that the scientific study of conspiracy theories is part of, and has a unique place in, social justice research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Justice Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8477633/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Justice Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00376-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Justice Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00376-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

阴谋论广泛存在,对社会有着深远的影响。目前的贡献提出,阴谋论是解释性的叙述,必然包含正义判断,因为它们包括归咎和不道德或犯罪行为的指控。然而,阴谋论叙事也是一种心理模拟,可能会引发真正的不公正感,但也没有实际不当行为的证据。事实上,阴谋论有时描述的是不太可能发生的不公平事件,以及可能并不存在的不道德权威,等等。在这里,我提出了两个互补的过程,激发了人们对无证据阴谋论的信仰:(1)存在主义威胁激发了有偏见的心理处理和动机推理,它们共同促进了对现实的另一种感知;(2)群体忠诚塑造了人们如何感知、解释和记忆事实,以突出竞争外群体的不道德品质。由于这些过程,阴谋论引发了一系列不同的反应,如不良的健康选择和拒绝科学。此外,无证据的阴谋论需要超越传统方法的干预来确立正义原则,例如揭穿谎言和减少群体间的两极分化。我的结论是,阴谋论的科学研究是社会正义研究的一部分,并且在社会正义研究中占有独特的地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Injustice Without Evidence: The Unique Role of Conspiracy Theories in Social Justice Research.

Conspiracy theories are widespread and have a profound impact on society. The present contribution proposes that conspiracy theories are explanatory narratives that necessarily contain justice judgments, as they include attributions of blame and accusations of unethical or criminal conduct. Conspiratorial narratives also are mental simulations, however, and may elicit genuine feelings of injustice also without evidence of actual malpractice. Indeed, conspiracy theories sometimes describe unfair events that are unlikely to have occurred, unethical authorities that might not actually exist, and so on. Here I propose two complementary processes that stimulate belief in evidence-free conspiracy theories: (1) Existential threats instigate biased mental processing and motivated reasoning, that jointly promote an alternative perception of reality; and (2) group allegiances shape how people perceive, interpret, and remember facts to highlight the immoral qualities of competing outgroups. Due to these processes, conspiracy theories elicit a set of distinct reactions such as poor health choices and rejection of science. Moreover, evidence-free conspiracy theories require interventions beyond traditional approaches to install justice principles, such as debunking falsehoods and reducing polarized intergroup distinctions. I conclude that the scientific study of conspiracy theories is part of, and has a unique place in, social justice research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Social Justice Research, is an international multidisciplinary forum for the publication of original papers that have broad implications for social scientists investigating the origins, structures, and consequences of justice in human affairs. The journal encompasses the justice-related work (using traditional and novel approaches) of all social scientists-psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, policy scientists, political scientists, legal researchers, management scientists, and others. Its multidisciplinary approach furthers the integration of the various social science perspectives. In addition to original research papers - theoretical, empirical, and methodological - the journal also publishes book reviews and, from time to time, special thematic issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信