Conspiracy Theories in Online Environments: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review and Agenda For Future Research

1075759 NMS0010.1177/14614448221075759new media & societyMahl et al.
research-article2022
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

https://www.tarjomano.com https://www.tarjomano.com
Review Article
new media & society
Conspiracy theories in
2023, Vol. 25(7) 1781–1801
© The Author(s) 2022
online environments: An Article reuse guidelines:

interdisciplinary literature sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221075759
DOI: 10.1177/14614448221075759
review and agenda for future journals.sagepub.com/home/nms
research
Daniela Mahl , Mike S. Schäfer

and Jing Zeng
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract
Research on conspiracy theories in digital media has grown considerably in recent
years. As a result, the field of research has become more multidisciplinary and
diverse. To bridge disciplinary boundaries, identify foci of analysis and research gaps,
this study provides an interdisciplinary systematic literature review (2007–2020),
analyzing current research on conspiracy theorizing online, both quantitatively
and qualitatively. Findings show that the majority of studies lack a definition of
conspiracy theories and fail to conceptually delineate conspiracy theories from other
forms of deceptive content. We also found that while the field employs a variety of
methodological approaches, most studies have focused on individual, “mainstream”
social media platforms, “Western” countries, English-language communication, and
single conspiracy theories. We use the findings of our review to remedy conceptual
and empirical shortcomings and to provide suggestions on how to move forward in
research on conspiracy theories online.
Keywords
Conspiracy theories, digital media, disinformation, misinformation, social media
platforms, systematic literature review
Corresponding author:
Daniela Mahl, Department of Communication and Media Research, University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15,
Zurich, 8050, Switzerland.
Email: d.mahl@ikmz.uzh.ch
1782 new media & society 25(7)
Introduction
Conspiracy theories—defined as alternative explanations of historical or ongoing events
claiming that people or groups with sinister intentions are engaged in conspiratorial plot-
ting (Uscinski, 2018)—have permeated online communication (Wood and Douglas,
2015), news media coverage (Waisbord, 2018), popular culture (Bell and Bennion-
Nixon, 2000), and political rhetoric (Mede and Schäfer, 2020), among other fields.
For a long time, conspiracy theories were perceived as harmless phenomena that were
“silly and without merit” (Keeley, 1999: 109) or only existed as “‘soft’ beliefs” (Sunstein
and Vermeule, 2009: 220) that people quietly kept but rarely acted upon. Profound
changes in the media and platform ecosystem and particularly the advent of social media
platforms, which have enabled faster communication about and dissemination of con-
spiratorial narratives, have changed this, however. Thus, the last few decades have seen
a plethora of “high-profile conspiracy theorizing” (Uscinski, 2018: 233) around topics
such as vaccination, climate change, the 9/11 attacks (Mahl et al., 2021), or, most recently,
the COVID-19 pandemic (Zeng and Schäfer, 2021).
As a result, research on conspiracy theories in digital environments has grown across
disciplines and become more diverse in terms of concepts, analytical approaches, and
method(ologie)s. Against this backdrop, the contribution of this article is twofold. First,
we systematically review research on conspiracy theorizing in online environments
across disciplines to synthesize existing knowledge and to identify limitations and blind
spots. Second, this synthesis provides conceptual and empirical building blocks to
inform future research.
Research on conspiracy theories in online environments

The genesis of a research field
Starting with Hofstadter’s (1965) foundational work on conspiracy theorizing as the
manifestation of a “paranoid style,” distinctive strands of research have emerged, now
spanning half a century and a multitude of disciplines (for overviews, see Butter and
Knight, 2015; Uscinski, 2018). While historical approaches have investigated structural
and historical features as indicators of societal crises (e.g. Davis, 1971; Wood, 1982),
cultural, philosophical, and epistemological accounts have explored what defines con-
spiracy theories and their epistemological characteristics (e.g. Clarke, 2002; Knight,
1999). Socio-psychological and political approaches, by contrast, have focused on indi-
viduals, aiming to identify factors that drive people to adopt conspiratorial beliefs (e.g.
Swami et al., 2010; Wood and Douglas, 2013).
In recent years, triggered by the advent of digital technologies, the visibility of
conspiracy theories has increased. The architecture of online environments, such as
technological affordances of social media platforms, has facilitated the dissemination
of conspiratorial narratives, for instance, by circumventing traditional and institution-
alized gatekeepers. This allows conspiracy communities to emerge and grow over
time. In turn, the increased visibility of such content encourages more individuals to
publicly share their support and to connect with like-minded people (cf. DeWitt et al.,
2018). These shifts in digital ecosystems have led to the emergence of a new research
Mahl et al. 1783
field: information- and communication-related studies interrogating the interplay

between conspiracy theorizing and digital media, that is, online (news) media, social
media platforms, and instant messengers (e.g. Theocharis et al., 2021; Tingley and
Wagner, 2017).
A closer look at scholarship on conspiracy theories online points to two constitut-
ing characteristics. First, a multitude of disciplines contribute to the research field.
Research on conspiracy theories in digital environments can be roughly grouped into
two strands: on the one hand, studies analyzing why people hold conspiracy beliefs
and how digital media affect such beliefs (e.g. Allington et al., 2020; Mancosu and
Vegetti, 2020), and on the other hand, studies interrogating how conspiracy theories
are communicated online (e.g. Bruns et al., 2020; Mahl et al., 2021). Both research
strands correspond very well with the core research interests of various disciplines
such as sociology, psychology, communication science, and beyond. In addition, the
wealth of conspiratorial narratives around topics as diverse as science, medicine and
public health, the environment, terrorism, political, or cultural affairs underlines that
the growing interest in conspiracy theories online is not bound to specific disciplines.
While the multidisciplinary nature of the research field greatly enhances our under-
standing of the phenomenon by drawing on a wide range of disciplinary perspectives
on both the conceptual and analytical level, it also entails different understandings of
conspiracy theories and can thwart conceptual advancement.
Second, the field is characterized by multiple definitions of conspiracy theories.
Scholars with different disciplinary backgrounds conceptualize conspiracy theories
differently by emphasizing various facets of it them. For instance, in attempting to pin
down the term, some have accentuated the epistemological nature or status of con-
spiracy theories and defined them as a form of “stigmatized” (Barkun, 2016) or “devi-
ant” knowledge (Keeley, 1999). Others highlight the content of conspiracy theories by
defining them as alternative explanations that accuse powerful individuals of acting in
secret to bring about change in society (e.g. Uscinski, 2018). Yet others draw attention
to the context in which conspiracy theories are likely to emerge, such as in times of
societal crises (e.g. van Prooijen and Douglas, 2017). It is important to note that it is
not a problem per se that different definitions emphasize different facets of conspiracy
theories—in fact, for a concept under study in multiple disciplines this is almost una-
voidable—as long as the majority of the field agrees on the fundamental elements of
the phenomenon.
An agreement on the fundamentals might even help to clarify the conceptual bound-
aries of conspiracy theories. This is crucial since digital technologies have not only
given rise to conspiratorial narratives but also to related forms of deceptive content,
such as misinformation (i.e. non-intentional deception), disinformation (i.e. intentional
deception), fake news (i.e. a label to delegitimize news media or a genre of fabricated
news reports), and rumors (i.e. unverified information) (for frameworks defining these
concepts, see Egelhofer and Lecheler, 2019; Wardle and Derakhshan, 2017; Zeng,
2021).1 What distinguishes conspiracy theories from these concepts is that they pro-
vide alternative explanations—which entails the essential and still debated question of
whether they are necessarily false or merely alternative (Uscinski, 2018: 236f.). With
respect to conceptual boundaries, various scholars have criticized that conspiracy theo-
ries and other forms of deceptive content are often not delineated clearly (Schatto-
Eckrodt et al., 2020; Uscinski, 2018; Zeng, 2021).
The necessity of an interdisciplinary literature review

Due to the growing number of studies on conspiracy theories in online environments
and the broad thematic, conceptual, methodological, and disciplinary spectrum that
they represent, it has become difficult to keep track of all research activity. In such situ-
ations, systematic literature reviews integrating insights from different research strands
and disciplines, identifying analytical foci as well as blind spots and limitations in cur-
rent work, can help. They can consolidate knowledge in a field of research and foster
scientific progress—and in this case, help to fully comprehend how conspiracy theoriz-
ing interacts with digital media.
The article at hand provides such a systematic review. We start with investigating the
multi- and interdisciplinary character of research on conspiracy theories online and the
field’s development over time. Thus, our first research question (RQ1) reads, How has
research on conspiracy theories online developed over time and across disciplines?
Second, we are interested in whether and how conspiracy theories are defined and
delineated from other forms of deceptive content, and how conspiracy theories are con-
ceptualized. This leads to our second research question (RQ2): How are conspiracy theo-
ries online conceptualized in scholarship?
In addition, we map the empirical assessment of prevalent conspiracy theorizing
online, that is, conspiracy theory topics, online environments, countries and languages,
methodological approaches, and the main research objects under investigation. Hence,
our third research question (RQ3) asks, How are conspiracy theories online analyzed
empirically in scholarship?
Data and methods

Literature search and sample
To identify relevant publications, we used Scopus, one of the most comprehensive schol-
arly databases covering a wide range of disciplines. Compared to the Web of Science
database, Scopus also includes edited volumes, book chapters, and conference proceed-
ings (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). At the same time, it is less inclusive than Google
Scholar, which also contains (under)graduate theses or conference presentations
(Gusenbauer and Haddaway, 2020).
We performed a database search including all publications (i.e. journal articles, books,
book chapters, and proceedings) that contained the following search terms in the title,
abstract, or keywords: conspira* AND (online OR web OR internet OR social media OR
platform OR messenger)2. Search results were not restricted to any specific time period.
This search was the first of several selection steps (see Figure 1).
After this, all articles were checked in detail by screening the abstracts and critically
assessing the full texts according to the following two inclusion criteria: the empirical
analysis or the theoretical argument of the given publication had to focus on (1)
Mahl et al. 1785
Figure 1. Literature selection process.
conspiracy theories, including the communication of and belief in them, in (2) online
environments. On this basis, two coders decided about the inclusion of articles. Some
publications contained all search terms, yet nevertheless did not address conspiracy
theories online. For instance, there were articles that did analyze deceptive content, yet
mentioned conspiracy theories only in passing; or articles that did investigate con-
spiracy theories, but not in the context of online environments, even though they men-
tioned the respective search terms in the abstract (for instance, referring to online
surveys). Intercoder reliability based on a random sample of 48 articles (approx. 10%)
showed high agreement (Krippendorff’s α = .87). Eventually, 148 publications (81.8%
journal articles, 17.6% conference proceedings, and 0.7% book chapters) met our
inclusion criteria and thus were selected for analysis.
Literature categorization and coded variables

With respect to RQ1, the first set of variables was used to assess the field’s evolution
over time and across disciplines (for a detailed overview of all variables, see
Supplementary Material Table B1). For each article, we coded the type of publication,
that is, whether it is an empirical analysis or a theoretical–conceptual contribution. In
addition, we recorded the discipline of the authors according to their institutional affili-
ation. While the affiliation of the first author was used to assign the publication to a
discipline and to assess the multidisciplinary character of the research field, the affilia-
tion of all authors was coded to identify interdisciplinary cooperation3. Apart from this,
we were interested in whether authors publish outside of their main discipline in either
mono- or multidisciplinary journals—which can also be seen as a form of multidiscipli-
narity. To evaluate this, we identified the discipline of journals based on journal catego-
ries classified in the ISI Web of Science Journal Citation Report (JCR).
The second block of variables aimed at conceptual approaches (RQ2) and covered
whether a definition of “conspiracy theory” was provided; if so, which conceptual ele-
ments were used in the definition (e.g. responsible actors or targets) and the foci of the
definition (e.g. referring to the content or function of conspiracy theories). In addition, we

coded whether references were cited to define conspiracy theories; and if so, which ones.
To empirically assess the often-diagnosed lack of conceptual clarity of conspiracy theo-
ries and related forms of deceptive content, we also recorded whether the study mentioned
the concepts of misinformation, disinformation, fake news, or rumors without explicitly
defining or differentiating them from conspiratorial narratives. Furthermore, we coded
whether and which theoretical-conceptual frameworks were used or developed.
A third set of variables was only coded for empirical studies. Our interest in empiri-
cal-methodological approaches (RQ3) spanned the analyzed conspiracy theory discourse
(i.e. a specific topic, such as the 9/11 attacks, or generic phenomena, such as conspirato-
rial narratives), online environment (i.e. the type of online environment, such as social
media platform, and the specific platform, such as Twitter), country (i.e. a specific coun-
try or a language-based sample), and language. Following this, we recorded the applied
research design, that is, whether it was a case study, a cross-sectional analysis comparing
different topics and/or countries and/or languages, or a multi-sectional study combining
different topics and/or countries and/or languages, and whether it applied a longitudinal
design. In addition, we coded the modality of data (e.g. text-based or visual content),
analytical approach (e.g. inductive/exploratory or deductive/hypothesis-driven), and the
method used (e.g. survey or network analysis). At the end of this block, the main research
object under investigation was qualitatively reviewed and pooled into overarching cate-
gories based on similarity in meaning.
Intercoder reliability calculation regarding the above-mentioned variables was carried
out by two coders using a random sample of 15 articles (approx. 10%) and showed very
good reliability scores (Krippendorff’s α ⩾.83; see Supplementary Material Table B1).
Results
In line with our research questions, this chapter is divided into three subsections: We start
with the development of the research field (RQ1), then continue with conceptual
approaches (RQ2), followed by empirical-methodological aspects and the main research
objects (RQ3).
The research field over time and across disciplines

Rising academic attention. A look at the distribution of articles over time shows a sharp
increase in academic attention to conspiracy theories online across all disciplines—with
the last 2 years accounting for more than half of all publications dealing with the issue
since 2007. As Figure 2 illustrates, only very few articles appeared between 2007 and
2017, followed by a first slight rise in 2018 and 2019, and a sharp 180% increase in 2020
over the previous year. Likely, this growth is backed by the high proliferation of con-
spiracy theories online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mostly empirical studies. The overwhelming majority of publications are empirical analy-
ses (87.2%). In contrast, only 6.1% introduce a novel methodological approach, for
instance, to automatically detect conspiracy theory-related content (Samory and Mitra,
Mahl et al. 1787
Figure 2. Number of studies investigating conspiracy theories online.

N = 148 articles (disciplines displayed: n = 115 articles, other disciplines: n = 5 articles, discipline unknown:
n = 28 articles).
2018bA; Conti et al., 2017A)4. Overall, 4.1% of all publications primarily aimed to make
a theoretical-conceptual contribution while still empirically examining data—such as
Neudert et al. (2019A), who introduced an empirically grounded typology of political
news and information on social media and compared sourcing and consumption during
three elections. A very small minority of 2.7% of publications were entirely theoretical
or conceptual in nature—outlining frameworks such as the “anti-public sphere,” an
online space which includes conspiratorial or alt-right content (Davis, 2021A).
High multi- and interdisciplinarity. Our review reveals that research on conspiracy theo-
ries in online environments spans a multitude of disciplines. We aggregated them into
social sciences (40.5%) and information science (17.6%), which were the most promi-
nent, followed by life sciences and medicine (10.8%), arts and humanities (8.1%), and
law (0.7%). Taking a closer look at the multidisciplinarity of the field, we found that
33.9% of all articles were published in monodisciplinary journals outside of the
Figure 3. Foci and conceptual elements of definitions.

N = 57 articles providing a definition of conspiracy theories (codes were not mutually exclusive).
respective authors’ main discipline. Here, disciplinary differences appeared: While

social scientists published most frequently outside of their field (16.5%), for instance,
in life sciences journals about health-related conspiracy theories, life scientists strictly
stayed within their disciplinary boundaries. Information scientists (8.7%) and humani-
ties scholars (7.8%) mainly chose social scientific journals as outlets. Across disci-
plines, 5.2% of all studies were published in multidisciplinary journals such as PLoS
ONE. It is worth noting that publishing in mono- or multidisciplinary journals outside
of the home discipline does not imply that these articles are interdisciplinary in nature
because this does not necessarily encourage an active exchange between or integration
of disciplines.
With respect to the interdisciplinarity of the field, our findings point toward a high
degree of collaboration across disciplinary boundaries: 41.9% of all studies include
authors from at least two disciplines. However, most of these collaborations stayed
within the same broader research tradition, for example when social scientists from com-
munication science and sociology work together.
Conceptual perspective
Lack of definitions, but agreement on basic conceptual elements. Turning toward the con-
ceptual perspective of conspiracy theories, our research shows that among the 148 arti-
cles coded, only 38.5% provided a definition of the term “conspiracy theory.” Therefore,
most of the articles in our sample studied conspiracy theories online without explicitly
defining the main object of their research.
The studies that did provide such a definition, however, agree on specific foci and
conceptual elements of conspiracy theories (see Figure 3). Most of these definitions
emphasized the content of conspiratorial narratives (93%) by defining them
Mahl et al. 1789
as “an allegation regarding the existence of a secret plot between powerful people or
organizations” (Chen et al., 2020b: 1344A following Wood and Douglas (2015)). In con-
trast, 17.5% highlighted the function of conspiracy theorizing, as they “reduce the com-
plexity of reality” (Mocanu et al., 2015: 1198A) or “‘help’ people make sense of the
world” (van den Bulck and Hyzen, 2020: 45A). Only 5.3% accentuated the context in
which conspiratorial narratives emerge by stating that they arise from people’s “desire to
understand critical events occurring in the society” (Andrei et al., 2019: 1433A, follow-
ing van Prooijen and Douglas (2017)).
Looking at frequently used conceptual elements to define conspiracy theories, studies
often referred to responsible, often secretly operating actors (61.4%) or historical events
or practices (47.4%). Others pointed out that conspiracy theories provide alternative
explanations that run counter to official accounts (29.8%) or point to the goals (24.6%),
actions (10.5%), or targets (10.5%) of conspiracy theorizing. The majority of articles
defined conspiracy theories using several of these elements, with the following occurring
most often together: actors and events (24.6%), actors and their goals (10.5%), events
and alternative explanations (5.3%), or events, actors, and goals (5.3%).
Of the 57 studies that provided a definition, 68.4% relied on definitions introduced in
prior scholarship. The definition cited most often in our sample (8.7%) was the one by
Sunstein and Vermeule (2009: 205), who understand conspiracy theories as “an effort to
explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who
attempt to conceal their role”—which largely corresponds with the most frequently used
conceptual elements found in our analysis.
Blurred conceptual boundaries. Scholars have criticized that conspiracy theories and other
forms of deceptive content such as mis- and disinformation are often not delineated in a
meaningful way (Schatto-Eckrodt et al., 2020; Uscinski, 2018; Zeng, 2021). Our results
empirically support this concern: 72.3% of all studies examining conspiracy theories
also refer to or mention the concepts of misinformation, disinformation, fake news, or
rumors without explicitly defining and differentiating them from each other. Most stud-
ies mix conspiracy theories and misinformation (69.2%), followed by rumors (41.1%),
fake news (38.3%), and disinformation (18.7%). Notably, almost half of all studies
(43.9%) refer to several of these concepts simultaneously without clearly delineating
them. Most strikingly, the proportion of studies that conflate conspiracy theories with
other forms of deceptive content has seen a sharp increase over time: While only few
articles intermixed these terms until 2018 (approximately 3.5% per year), we see a dis-
proportional rise in 2019 (17.8%) and even more so in 2020 (50.5%).
Lack of theoretical frameworks. Although the multidisciplinary nature of the research field
suggests that the analyses would use a wealth of theoretical and conceptual frameworks,
our results indicate otherwise. First, only 34.5% of all studies explicitly embedded their
empirical investigation in a theoretical or conceptual framework at all, for example, by
deriving research questions, hypotheses, or analytical dimensions from an established or
newly developed conceptual framework. Many of them provide a brief summary of
empirical findings from prior research—which is certainly valuable, but lacks sufficient
theoretical reflection, may make generalization beyond the analyzed cases more
Figure 4. Analyzed conspiracy theory topics.

N = 144 empirical studies (displayed here: articles analyzing specific conspiracy theory topics n ⩾ 2; codes
were not mutually exclusive; human papillomavirus [HPV], measles, mumps, rubella [MMR]).
difficult, and could even produce empirical artifacts. Second, studies which did name
theoretical or conceptual frameworks mainly used work from the social sciences, such as
the health believe model (e.g. Briones et al., 2012A), framing (e.g. Yang et al., 2014A), or
motivated reasoning (e.g. Bode and Vraga, 2018A). It should be noted that these results
may be due to different disciplinary traditions. Thus, it seems that theoretical and concep-
tual frameworks are used more frequently in the social sciences than in the humanities or
life sciences.
Empirical-methodological perspective
Focus on single conspiracy theory topics. Most studies take one of the following two
approaches: they either analyze conspiracy theories as a generic, abstract phenomenon,
or they focus on specific, single conspiracy theory topics. In total, about one-third of all
empirical studies in our sample (N = 144) followed the first approach (29.9%) and
examined, for instance, generic conspiratorial beliefs and ideation (Essam et al., 2019A)
or different online environments known to contain conspiratorial content such as BitCh-
ute (Trujillo et al., 2020A).
Most of the studies in our sample took the second approach and analyzed individual
conspiracy theories (70.1%; see Figure 4). They interrogated health- and science-related
conspiracy theory topics linked to the COVID-19 pandemic (16.7%), vaccination in gen-
eral (13.9%), human papillomavirus (HPV; 5.6%), the Zika virus (4.2%), measles,
mumps, and rubella (MMR; 2.8%), climate change (2.1%), or flat earth (2.1%). Others
addressed more overarching polarizing topics centered around chemtrails (4.2%) or anti-
Semitic narratives (2.1%). Some analyzed conspiracy theories related to events such as
the 9/11 attacks (4.2%), the moon landing (1.4%), Pizzagate (1.4%), or the Sandy Hook
Mahl et al. 1791
Figure 5. Analyzed online environments.

N = 144 empirical studies (displayed here: articles analyzing individual platforms n ⩾ 3; codes were not
mutually exclusive).
shooting (1.4%). Cross-topic designs that allow for comparisons between different con-
spiracy theories were the minority, accounting for only 4.2% of all articles.
Focus on “mainstream” social media platforms. In terms of analyzed online environments,

the large majority of analyses are single platform studies (81.2%) focusing mostly on
social media platforms (70.1%; see Figure 5). The most frequently analyzed platforms
are Facebook (23.6%), Twitter (20.1%), and YouTube (11.8%). In contrast, Reddit
(6.2%), Instagram (4.9%), 4chan (2.1%), or Weibo (2.1%) were the minority. Further-
more, scholars empirically interrogated online news media (16%), followed by blogs and
personal websites (6.2%), instant messengers (2.8%), search engines (2.1%), or discus-
sion forums (2.1%). Only a minority of publications studied conspiracy theories in the
context of fact-checking sites (1.4%) and news aggregators (1.4%).
Interest in conspiracy theories on online platforms has heightened from 2018 onward,
in line with the general growth of research on conspiracy theories online. Platforms
which are less regulated, such as Gab, 8kun, or 4chan, have only recently become an
object of empirical analyses (e.g., Bagavathi et al., 2019A; Zannettou et al., 2018A).
Focus on “Western” countries and English-language communication. Another bias in the

research field emerges in terms of the countries studied (see Table 1): a predominant
focus on “Western” countries, that is, Europe with 23.6% of all empirical analyses,
followed by North America with 15.3% and Oceania with 2.1%. Within these regions,
however, research is diverse, with studies covering Italy (e.g. Mocanu et al., 2015A),
the United Kingdom (e.g. Freeman et al., 2020A), Romania (e.g. Cmeciu and Coman,
2020A), Denmark (e.g. Stæhr, 2014A), Russia (e.g. Poberezhskaya, 2018A), the Nether-
lands (e.g. Lutkenhaus et al., 2019A), or Norway (e.g. Fangen and Holter, 2020A),
Table 1. Overview of countries and languages analyzed.
No. of publications (%)

Country-based sample 63 (43.8)
Europe (total) 34 (23.6)
Italy 13 (9)
United Kingdom 5 (3.5)
Romania 3 (2.1)
Denmark 2 (1.4)
Russia 2 (1.4)
North America (total) 22 (15.3)
United States 21 (14.6)
Asia (total) 11 (7.6)
China 4 (2.8)
Oceania (total) 3 (2.1)
Australia 3 (2.1)
Africa (total) 2 (1.4)
South America (total) 1 (0.7)
Multiple countries 6 (4.2)
Language-based sample 60 (41.7)
English 48 (33.3)
German 2 (1.4)
Multiple languages 3 (2.1)
N = 144 empirical studies (displayed here: articles analyzing specific countries and/or languages n ⩾ 2; coun-
try and/or language unknown: n = 21 articles (14.5%); codes were not mutually exclusive).
among others. In addition, scholars have analyzed Asian regions (7.6%), such as China
(e.g. Yang et al., 2014A), Bangladesh (e.g. Barua et al., 2020A), Japan (e.g. Okuhara
et al., 2018A), Malaysia (e.g. Wong et al., 2020A), and Taiwan (e.g. Nefes, 2014A).
Studies on Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria (e.g. Slavtcheva-Petkova,
2016A), the Czech Republic (e.g. Štětka et al., 2021A), Poland (e.g. Żuk and Żuk,
2020A), or the Ukraine (e.g. Zakharchenko et al., 2019A) are the minority, as are analy-
ses on African (e.g. Essam et al., 2019A) or South American countries such as Chile
(e.g. Halpern et al., 2019A). Only a few studies employed cross-country designs and
analyzed more than one nation (4.2%).
This “Western” focus is also present in those empirical analyses which focus on a
specific language rather than a certain country (41.7% of all publications): In total,
33.3% of all empirical analyses focus on English-language communication, 1.4% on
German, and 2.1% on multiple languages.
Focus on text-based content and exploratory approaches. Research on conspiracy theories

online is diverse in its analytical and methodological approaches (see Table 2). In terms
of applied research designs, half of all coded studies are case studies focusing on one
conspiracy theory in one online environment within one national context. However,
12.5% of all empirical studies in our sample were case studies
Mahl et al. 1793
Table 2. Overview of analytical and methodological approaches.
No. of publications (%)

Research design
Case study 72 (50)
Case study and longitudinal design 18 (12.5)
Cross-sectional study 31 (21.5)
Cross-sectional study and longitudinal design 16 (11.1)
Multi-sectional study 7 (4.9)
Modality of data*
Text-based content 113 (78.5)
Individuals 28 (19.4)
Audiovisual content 12 (8.3)
Visual content 7 (4.9)
Analytical approach
Inductive 113 (78.5)
Deductive 20 (13.9)
Inductive and deductive 11 (7.6)
Quantitative 97 (67.4)
Qualitative 28 (19.4)
Quantitative and qualitative 19 (13.2)
Method*
Content analysis (manual) 88 (61.1)
Content analysis (automated) 41 (28.5)
Network analysis 28 (19.4)
Survey 19 (13.2)
Interview 5 (3.5)
Survey experiment (online) 4 (2.8)
Agent-based modeling and simulation 3 (2.1)
Ethnography 2 (1.4)
Mixed methods 41 (28.5)
N = 144 empirical studies (*codes were not mutually exclusive).
analyzing temporal developments by applying a longitudinal design. A total of 21.5%

articles compared different conspiracy theory topics and/or online environments and/or
countries in cross-sectional studies, while 4.9% combined, for instance, different online
media without explicitly comparing them with each other.
Looking at the modality of data examined, a clear bias toward text-based content
appears, which is analyzed in 78.5% of all coded articles. Other than these communica-
tion-centered studies, some publications focus on individuals (19.4%) as they explore the
relationship between conspiratorial beliefs and digital media. Audiovisual and visual
contents are less frequently studied, with only 8.3% and 4.9%, respectively.
In terms of analytical approaches, most articles used quantitative methods (67.4%)
and an inductive approach (78.5%). By contrast, only 7.6% combined inductive and
deductive approaches or qualitative and quantitative methods (13.2%).
Although the field of research is characterized by a variety of methods, manual

content analysis is the most frequent (61.1%), followed by automated content
(28.5%) and network analysis (19.4%). Research on individuals’ beliefs in conspir-
acy theories mostly relies on surveys (13.2%), interviews (3.5%), and survey experi-
ments (2.8%). Simulation (2.1%) or ethnographical studies (1.4%) were only a small
minority. At 28.5%, almost one-third of all empirical investigations leveraged mixed
methods.
Research objects. With regard to research objects, six thematic categories emerged in a
qualitative reading and synthesis of all empirical studies of our sample (N = 144): (1)
representation, (2) production, (3) dissemination, (4) debunking, (5) consumption of
conspiracy theories online, and (6) predictors and consequences of conspiratorial beliefs5.
Representation. The first and by far largest category includes empirical studies exam-
ining how conspiratorial content is represented in digital media (n = 47). This includes
investigating specific conspiracy theory topics, the structure of conspiratorial language,
and socio-political discourses in which conspiracy content emerges. In this sense, often
identified research objects span (sub)topics or themes, frames, discursive patterns, and
rhetorical strategies linked to discourses around climate change (e.g. Poberezhskaya,
2018A), vaccination (e.g. Numerato et al., 2019A), the Zika virus (e.g. Kou et al., 2017A),
or COVID-19 (e.g. Li et al., 2020A). Others cover more abstract aspects, such as the
communication of sentiments of distrust toward science (Colella, 2016A), the use of con-
spiracy theorizing by radical extremist organizations (Rousis et al., 2020A), or narratives
denoting mistrust in official information (Samory and Mitra, 2018bA). In addition, some
studies analyze issue-specific discourses, but identify content attributes which are of
interest for the broader field of conspiracy theorizing online. Kata’s (2010A) study of nar-
rative arguments proffered on anti-vaccination websites is an example. She developed an
extensive list of content attributes, such as misrepresentations, anti-science narratives, or
the presentation of privileged knowledge. In addition to thematic and rhetorical patterns,
articles have studied narrative stances, that is, the support or rejection of conspirato-
rial content as well as positive, negative, and emotional sentiments in online discourses
(e.g. Mitra et al., 2016A). In this vein, Wood and Douglas (2013), for example, used
a socio-psychological approach to examine the promotion and rejection of alternative
explanations in online discussions of 9/11-related conspiracy theories. Finally, only a
minority of articles examined the utilization of memes and visual rhetoric, such as the
use of triple parentheses as a form of memetic antagonism (Tuters and Hagen, 2020A) or
the circulation of Mahatma Gandhi and mercury memes in anti-vaccination discourses
(Buts, 2020A).
Production. The second thematic category captures empirical studies exploring dif-
ferent aspects related to the production of conspiratorial content online (n = 19). This
includes individuals creating and communicating conspiracy narratives, digital plat-
forms containing conspiracy theories, and intermediaries such as journalists inves-
tigating them. Frequently explored research objects cover the characterization and
structure of different sources, that is, user communities propagating (e.g. Klein et al.,
Mahl et al. 1795
2018A) or digital platforms containing conspiracy theories (e.g. Trujillo et al., 2020A).
Fangen and Holter (2020A), for instance, conducted interviews with people who spread
conspiratorial (as well as racist and discriminatory) content to characterize their self-
concepts and their concepts of adversaries. Using a computational approach, Bessi
(2016A) classified personality traits of users supporting scientific or conspiratorial nar-
ratives according to their online behavior. Other articles draw comparisons between
sources such as neutral or “mainstream” news outlets and conspiratorial or “alterna-
tive” platforms (e.g. Bradshaw et al., 2020bA). In addition, studies have surveyed the
repertoire of information sources conspiracy theory communities use to back their
argumentation (Schatto-Eckrodt et al., 2020). In terms of intermediaries investigating
conspiratorial content, only one article in our sample conducted in-depth interviews
with journalists to explore how they report on online misinformation and conspiracy
theories (McClure Haughey et al., 2020A).
Dissemination. Another category of studies analyzes the dissemination and spread

of conspiracy theories in online environments (n = 19), focusing, for example, on the
prevalence of specific conspiracy theories or conspiratorial talk (e.g., Dobreva et al.,
2020A; Glenski et al., 2018A), information flows and dynamics (e.g. Bruns et al., 2020;
Paolillo, 2018A), or factors contributing to the spread of conspiracy content (e.g. Del
Vicario et al., 2016aA; Sharma et al., 2017A). For example, Hussein et al. (2020A)
investigated whether personalization and user activities contribute to the amplifica-
tion of misinformation and conspiratorial content. In addition, Lobato et al. (2020A)
explored how factors such as conspiracy ideation or political orientation predict a
willingness to share COVID-19-related conspiracy narratives. Finally, scholars were
interested in user engagement with conspiratorial content online (e.g. Horne et al.,
2019A). For instance, Bessi et al. (2017A) interrogated the relationship between content
diversity and popularity, that is, liking or sharing content, by comparing conspiratorial
and science-related Facebook pages.
Debunking. Studies in the fourth category develop and evaluate debunking strategies
(n = 9) and cover research objects related to media literacy, that is, users’ ability to rec-
ognize conspiratorial content online (e.g. Porshnev and Miltsov, 2020A) or correction
mechanisms and their efficacy (e.g. Bode and Vraga, 2018A). In this light, Roozenbeek
and van der Linden (2019A) explored the effects of psychological intervention on peo-
ple’s ability to spot and resist false information and deceptive content. For this purpose,
the authors evaluated an online browser game which aims to familiarize people with
common strategies of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Others, such as Porsh-
nev and Miltsov (2020A), investigated the role of rational thinking, news consumption
patterns, media literacy, and fact-checking behavior on users’ ability to differentiate
between true and false news. Finally, scholars developed and empirically exemplified
methodological approaches to automatically detect conspiratorial content online (e.g.
Conti et al., 2017A; Tangherlini et al., 2020A).
Consumption. Only few studies in our sample (n = 3) focused primarily on the audi-
ences’ consumption of and exposure to conspiracy theories online without testing how
this translates into conspiratorial beliefs. This includes the analysis of users’ news con-
sumption patterns of websites spreading conspiratorial content (Štětka et al., 2021A) or
people’s exposure to conspiratorial narratives and false information (Halpern et al.,
2019A). Another study focused on Internet search behavior related to COVID-19 infor-
mation (Rovetta and Bhagavathula, 2020A).
Predictors and consequences of conspiratorial beliefs. While the majority of the

above-mentioned categories ask how conspiracy theories are communicated online,
the last category of research objects investigates the corresponding effects. The
respective, scholars attempt to understand how digital media use and endorsement
of conspiratorial content affect people’s willingness to believe or support such nar-
ratives (n = 10) and, in turn, how this translates into attitudinal or behavioral con-
sequences (n = 7). Thus, research has investigated multiple predictors of conspiracy
beliefs, such as online media use and exposure to conspiracy theories, personality
traits, and social and political factors. Mancosu and Vegetti (2020), for instance,
employed a survey experiment and tested whether the content of news (conspiratorial
vs debunking) and the type of media outlet publishing it (mainstream vs independent)
affect people’s perceptions of the plausibility of news. Featherstone et al. (2019A)
assessed how health information sources people rely upon and their political ideolo-
gies are associated with the acceptance of vaccine conspiracies. In addition, several
studies have explored how exposure to conspiratorial content in digital media not
only affects people’s willingness to believe and support such content but also how this
translates into attitudes (e.g. science denial) or behavior and behavioral intentions
(e.g. health-related choices) (e.g. Earnshaw et al., 2020A; Freeman et al., 2020A). In
this vein, Allington et al. (2020) investigated, for example, the relationship between
social media use, conspiracy beliefs, and health-protective behaviors with regard to
COVID-19.
The way ahead: Directions for future research

Digital technologies have catalyzed the dissemination of and communication about
conspiracy theories. Not only did they amplify their visibility; they also led to an
increase in research on conspiracy theorizing online. By providing the first compre-
hensive literature review of research on conspiracy theories in digital environments
across disciplinary fields, we investigated the evolution of the field (RQ1) as well as
conceptual (RQ2) and empirical-methodological approaches and the main research
objects under investigation (RQ3).
Our review showed that research on conspiracy theorizing online grew considerably,
especially over the last 2 years, in a multitude of disciplines ranging from the arts and
humanities to the life sciences, social sciences, and information science. We also found
that researchers frequently publish outside of their home discipline in either mono- or
multidisciplinary journals and work in interdisciplinary teams—most of these coopera-
tions, however, remain within the same broader research tradition. Looking at the con-
ceptual level of conspiracy theory research, our results show that the majority of studies
lack a definition of conspiracy theories and fail to clarify the conceptual boundaries
Mahl et al. 1797
between conspiratorial narratives and other forms of deceptive content. However, those
that did offer a definition shared a basic understanding of the phenomenon and its funda-
mental conceptual elements. Finally, our analysis highlights that the field suffers from
empirical biases in four respects: it focuses strongly on single “mainstream” social media
platforms, “Western” countries, English-language communication, and single conspir-
acy theory topics. By contrast, the field employs a variety of methodological approaches
and investigates a host of research objects, such as the representation, dissemination, or
debunking of conspiracy theories.
Based on these findings, the following sections provide conceptual and empirical
building blocks that could help to remedy the identified shortcomings of current research
and to set up new lines of research.
Clarifying the conceptual core and boundaries of conspiracy theories

To develop a better understanding of how conspiracy theories content—compared to
other forms of deceptive information—operate in online environments, it is important to
clarify their conceptual core and boundaries. In this vein, we identified the most fre-
quently cited conceptual elements to define conspiracy theories to provide a definition
that reflects the common understanding within the field—which, we hope, ensures broad
applicability. Accordingly, conspiracy theories can be defined as unique epistemological
accounts that refute official accounts and instead propose alternative explanations of
events or practices by referring to individuals or groups acting in secret.
An important facet of conspiracy theories that rarely receives (critical) attention is the
notion of power (cf. Uscinski, 2018). Here, it is important to note that (alleged) conspira-
tors—although typically defined as such by scholars—do not necessarily have to be
powerful or elites. Such an attribution would disregard the fact that many autocratic rul-
ers utilize conspiracy theories to legitimize actions against oppositional or marginalized
groups, accusing them of hatching secret plans6. Conceptualizing conspiracy theories as
alternative explanations that refer to secret machinations also helps to delineate them
from other forms of deceptive content, such as misinformation (unintentionally false
information) or disinformation (strategically false information).
Acknowledging reconfigurations of the platform ecosystem

Apart from conceptual shortcomings, our literature review indicates that research is
dominated by a handful of “mainstream” social media platforms. While the respec-
tive scholarship has considerably enhanced our understanding of the characteristics
and impacts of communicating conspiracy theories on specific platforms, future
studies should move beyond single platform studies and focus more on the connec-
tivity and dynamics of the wider platform ecology. This will generate more fruitful
insights into how the convergence of new media technologies shapes the communi-
cation of conspiracy theories and how to improve related counterstrategies.
Essentially, both the dissemination and regulation of conspiracy theories online
should be perceived and analyzed as cross-platform phenomena. As evidenced by the
recent trend of deplatforming (Rogers, 2020), that is, removing actors for violating
platform rules, or deplatformization (van Dijck et al., 2021), that is, pushing back entire
platforms to the edge of the ecosystem, the intensified crackdown on conspiratorial con-
tent by leading social media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter fosters the expansion
of dark platforms (Zeng and Schäfer, 2021) which market themselves as hubs of “free
speech” without “censorship”. These platforms largely abstain from content moderation
and regulation, making them attractive for deplatformed actors. However, dark plat-
forms, their governance strategies, user communities, and technological infrastructure
remain largely underresearched. In addition, more research on the impacts of such coun-
terstrategies implemented by major tech companies is required. Recent advances in com-
putational methods have facilitated more comprehensive cross-platform investigations
of user practices and information transmission.
Acknowledging national, cultural, and socio-political contexts

Another shortcoming of prior research concerns the predominant focus on single, often
“Western” countries and English-language communication, which makes it difficult to
detect the nuances in national, cultural, and socio-political differences in the characteris-
tics and impacts of conspiracy theories. Gray (2008: 167) correctly pointed out that there
is “no single theory of conspiracism that simply and neatly can explain conspiracism,
much less one that can be taken from the Western experience.” To take the particularities
of the local political, economic, and cultural climate into consideration, scholars need to
provide more cross-national comparative research.
In addition, we found a predominant focus on single conspiracy theory topics,
which is problematic as previous studies suggests that conspiracy beliefs tend to
“stick together” (Douglas et al., 2019: 7); thus, people who believe in one conspiracy
theory are likely to also turn to others (van Prooijen, 2018). Moreover, research has
shown that many online communities do not only evolve around one specific con-
spiracy topic, but often disseminate different conspiratorial narratives simultaneously
(Mahl et al., 2021). To understand how conspiracy theories are aligned, and how
national, cultural, and socio-political factors help to explain alignments between con-
spiracy theories, comparative studies across topics would provide important insights
to develop contextualized counterstrategies.
Overall, this review has demonstrated that there is a trove of research on the interplay
between conspiracy theorizing and digital media. However, it has also highlighted that
further work is required—both on the conceptual and empirical level and with the help
of interdisciplinary cooperation. We believe that our outlined suggestions offer valuable
pathways to achieve these goals.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers whose remarks substantially improved this arti-
cle, as well as and Salome Bosshard and Lukas Tribelhorn for their assistance throughout the cod-
ing process.
Author agreement
All authors have agreed to this submission. We confirm that the article is not currently being con-
sidered for publication by any other print or electronic journal.
Mahl et al. 1799
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work is part of the research project “Science-related conspiracy
theories online: Mapping their characteristics, prevalence, and distribution internationally and
developing contextualized counter-strategies,” funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation
(SNSF; Grant No. IZBRZ1_186296).
ORCID iDs
Daniela Mahl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5330-6885
Mike S. Schäfer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-7503
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
1. It should be noted that there are overlapping dimensions between these concepts; for instance,
conspiratorial narratives can contain misinformation.
2. We tested several combinations of search term, but the one chosen ensured the highest recall.
In addition, although tested, we deliberately refrained from including specific prominent plat-
form names (e.g. Twitter or YouTube), as this would have skewed the search results by sys-
tematically overlooking lesser known platforms. We decided not to consider gray literature
(e.g. conference abstracts or presentations) due to its quality and impact. The search was run
on 5 January 2021.
3. See Choi and Pak (2006) or Huutoniemi et al. (2010) for a discussion and differentiation
between multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in research.
4. Studies that are part of the literature review sample are referred to with a superscript (A) to
indicate that they can be found in the Supplementary Material—SectionA.
5. It should also be mentioned that several empirical analyses in our sample combined differ-
ent research objects: representation and production (n = 18), representation and dissemination
(n = 10), or representation, production, and dissemination of conspiratorial content (n = 2).
6. We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this valuable hint.
References
Allington D, Duffy B, Wessely S, et al. (2020) Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and
conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychological Medicine
51(10): 1763–1769.
Barkun M (2016) Conspiracy theories as stigmatized knowledge. Diogenes 62(3–4): 114–120.
Bell D and Bennion-Nixon L-J (2000) The popular culture of conspiracy/the conspiracy of popular
culture. The Sociological Review 48(2): 133–152.
Bruns A, Harrington S and Hurcombe E (2020) ‘Corona? 5G? or both?’: the dynamics of COVID-
19/5G conspiracy theories on Facebook. Media International Australia 177(1): 12–29.
Butter M and Knight P (2015) Bridging the great divide: conspiracy theory research for the 21st
century. Diogenes 62(3–4): 17–29.
Choi BCK and Pak AWP (2006) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in
health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of
effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine 29(6): 351–364.
Clarke S (2002) Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing. Philosophy of the Social Sciences
32(2): 131–150.
Davis DB (1971) The Fear of Conspiracy: Images of Un-American Subversion from the Revolution
to the Present. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
DeWitt D, Atkinson M and Wegner D (2018) How conspiracy theories spread. In: Uscinski JE
(ed.) Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them. New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 319–336.
Douglas KM, Uscinski JE, Sutton RM, et al. (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political
Psychology 40(S1): 3–35.
Egelhofer JL and Lecheler S (2019) Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: a framework
and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association 43(2): 97–116.
Gray M (2008) Explaining conspiracy theories in modern Arab Middle Eastern political discourse:
some problems and limitations of the literature. Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies
17(2): 155–174.
Gusenbauer M and Haddaway NR (2020) Which academic search systems are suitable for system-
atic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and
26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods 11(2): 181–217.
Hofstadter R (1965) The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York:
Random House.
Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, Bruun H, et al. (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indica-
tors. Research Policy 39(1): 79–88.
Keeley BL (1999) Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy 96(3): 109–129.
Knight P (1999) Everything is connected: underworld’s secret history of paranoia. MFS Modern
Fiction Studies 45(3): 811–836.
Mahl D, Zeng J and Schäfer MS (2021) From “nasa lies” to “reptilian eyes”: mapping communica-
tion about 10 conspiracy theories, their communities, and main propagators on Twitter. Social
Media + Society 7(2): 1–12.
Mancosu M and Vegetti F (2020) “Is it the message or the messenger?”: conspiracy endorsement
and media sources. Social Science Computer Review 39(6): 1203–1217.
Mede NG and Schäfer MS (2020) Science-related populism: conceptualizing populist demands
toward science. Public Understanding of Science 29(5): 473–491.
Mongeon P and Paul-Hus A (2016) The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a com-
parative analysis. Scientometrics 106(1): 213–228.
Rogers R (2020) Deplatforming: following extreme Internet celebrities to Telegram and alterna-
tive social media. European Journal of Communication 35(3): 213–229.
Schatto-Eckrodt T, Boberg S, Wintterlin F, et al. (2020) Use and assessment of sources in conspir-
acy theorists’ communities. In: Grimme C, Preuss M, Takes FW, et al. (eds) Disinformation
in Open Online Media. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 25–32.
Sunstein CR and Vermeule A (2009) Conspiracy theories: causes and cures*. Journal of Political
Philosophy 17(2): 202–227.
Swami V, Chamorro-Premuzic T and Furnham A (2010) Unanswered questions: a preliminary
investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 24(6): 749–761.
Theocharis Y, Cardenal A, Jin S, et al. (2021) Does the platform matter? Social media and COVID-
19 conspiracy theory beliefs in 17 countries. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 9
October. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211045666.
Tingley D and Wagner G (2017) Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social
media. Palgrave Communications 3(1): 1–7.
Uscinski JE (2018) The study of conspiracy theories. Argumenta 3(2): 233–245.
Mahl et al. 1801
van Dijck J, Winkel T and de Schäfer MT (2021) Deplatformization and the governance of
the platform ecosystem. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 23 September. DOI:
10.1177/14614448211045662.
van Prooijen J-W (2018) Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. New York: Routledge.
van Prooijen J-W and Douglas KM (2017) Conspiracy theories as part of history: the role of soci-
etal crisis situations. Memory Studies 10(3): 323–333.
Waisbord S (2018) Truth is what happens to news. Journalism Studies 19(13): 1866–1878.
Wardle C and Derakhshan H (2017) Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary
Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe Report DGI(2017)09.
Available at: https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisci-
plinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html
Wood GS (1982) Conspiracy and the paranoid style: causality and deceit in the eighteenth century.
The William and Mary Quarterly 39(3): 401–441.
Wood MJ and Douglas KM (2013) “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of
online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–9.
Wood MJ and Douglas KM (2015) Online communication as a window to conspiracist world-
views. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1–8.
Zeng J (2021) Theoretical typology of deceptive content (conspiracy theories). Available at:
https://doi.org/10.34778/5g
Zeng J and Schäfer MS (2021) Conceptualizing “dark platforms.” Covid-19-related conspiracy
theories on 8kun and Gab. Digital Journalism 9(9): 1321–1343.
Author biographies
Daniela Mahl, MA, is a PhD student at IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media
Research, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Her research focuses on online conspiracy theo-
ries, digital public spheres, and computational social science. She works for a Swiss National
Science Foundation-funded international project on online conspiracy theories.
Dr Mike S. Schäfer is a Full Professor of Science Communication at IKMZ – Department of
Communication and Media Research, University of Zurich, Switzerland, and Director of the
Center for Higher Education and Science Studies (CHESS) at the University of Zurich. His
research focuses on science communication, climate change communication, online communica-
tion, and science-related public attitudes.
Dr Jing Zeng is a Senior Research Associate at IKMZ – Department of Communication and Media
Research, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Her research interests include science communica-
tion, online conspiracy theories, and digital methods.

Conspiracy Theories in Online Environments: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review and Agenda For Future Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conspiracy Theories in Online Environments: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review and Agenda For Future Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1075759 NMS0010.1177/14614448221075759new media & societyMahl et al.

Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

new media & society

online environments: An Article reuse guidelines:

Daniela Mahl , Mike S. Schäfer

1782 new media & society 25(7)

Research on conspiracy theories in online environments

Mahl et al. 1783

field: information- and communication-related studies interrogating the interplay

1784 new media & society 25(7)

The necessity of an interdisciplinary literature review

Data and methods

Mahl et al. 1785

Figure 1. Literature selection process.

Literature categorization and coded variables

1786 new media & society 25(7)

definition (e.g. referring to the content or function of conspiracy theories). In addition, we

The research field over time and across disciplines

Mahl et al. 1787

Figure 2. Number of studies investigating conspiracy theories online.

1788 new media & society 25(7)

Figure 3. Foci and conceptual elements of definitions.

respective authors’ main discipline. Here, disciplinary differences appeared: While

Mahl et al. 1789

1790 new media & society 25(7)

Figure 4. Analyzed conspiracy theory topics.

Mahl et al. 1791

Figure 5. Analyzed online environments.

Focus on “mainstream” social media platforms. In terms of analyzed online environments,

Focus on “Western” countries and English-language communication. Another bias in the

1792 new media & society 25(7)

Table 1. Overview of countries and languages analyzed.

No. of publications (%)

Focus on text-based content and exploratory approaches. Research on conspiracy theories

Mahl et al. 1793

Table 2. Overview of analytical and methodological approaches.

No. of publications (%)

N = 144 empirical studies (*codes were not mutually exclusive).

analyzing temporal developments by applying a longitudinal design. A total of 21.5%

1794 new media & society 25(7)

Although the field of research is characterized by a variety of methods, manual

Mahl et al. 1795

Dissemination. Another category of studies analyzes the dissemination and spread

1796 new media & society 25(7)

Predictors and consequences of conspiratorial beliefs. While the majority of the

The way ahead: Directions for future research

Mahl et al. 1797

Clarifying the conceptual core and boundaries of conspiracy theories

Acknowledging reconfigurations of the platform ecosystem

1798 new media & society 25(7)

Acknowledging national, cultural, and socio-political contexts

Mahl et al. 1799

1800 new media & society 25(7)

Mahl et al. 1801

You might also like