↓ Skip to main content

Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
15 blogs
twitter
124 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
16 Google+ users
reddit
4 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, Michael Marriott

Abstract

Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky et al., in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyses the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper's conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere's response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 124 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 6%
Canada 3 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 73 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 14 16%
Professor 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 23%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 8%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Other 25 29%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 232. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#167,396
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#354
of 34,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#990
of 291,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#19
of 967 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 967 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.