The Belief in Conspiracy Theories with Emphasis on the Kennedy Assassination
by
Elise Stone
The University of Findlay
Abstract
This paper explores conspiracy theories and what makes them believable to people
seeking the truth. It has been argued that conspiracy theories once limited to the fringe
element have now become much more commonplace and that a broad cross section of the
general public gives them credence, sparking interest from sociologists, psychologists
and others. Why is that the case when, although conspiracy theories cite information that
supports their rationale, it is usually very limited in its scope and accuracy? This paper
examines the modern phenomenon of conspiracy theories and its history. It researches the
definition and types of conspiracy theories currently recognized. Also, this paper
examines the effects of media on the population’s acceptance of conspiracy theories as
well as the role of politics. It details the conspiracy theorist’s approach to gaining the
information he or she needs to justify the theory and how it differs from that of a
professional investigator. This paper also investigates the psychology of conspiracy
theory and why people choose to believe the theories when many of them are illogical,
improbable and inaccurate. Although most conspiracy theory is rooted in paranoia, there
are other psychological factors at play. This paper also examines those issues, including
such things as victim mentality and the loss of control many people feel as their lives
move in directions they would not have chosen. With this said, what really influences
people to believe in conspiracy theories? Is the tendency to believe still present in the
current population? Can we determine what causes that tendency? After completing this
research, a survey will be developed to answer these questions and prove the hypothesis
that belief in conspiracy theories is alive and well.
Introduction
Everyone has their own opinion on the validity of conspiracy theories. On
one end of the spectrum there are those who believe the government is watching
their every move and at the other end are those who don’t like to ask questions. The
average person tends to fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. As human
beings we are prone to asking questions. Sometimes we do not like the responses
we hear and so attempt to come up with seemingly more fitting answers to our
questions. This becomes especially true when it comes to controversial topics such
as the assassination of President Kennedy and the terrorist attack on 9/11. Events
such as these raise many questions that are not easily answered. And in some cases,
instead of believing what we are told as citizens, we prefer to formulate our own
answers.
The media holds much influence over the way that people today formulate
thoughts and beliefs. Today’s media is a powerful tool that controls much of how
people articulate their thoughts into actions. The media often influences people to
ask questions and make assumptions about things that they may not completely
understand. Because of the evolution of television, movies, books, magazines, etc.
peoples’ views have become distorted to the point where it is difficult to
differentiate fact from that which is unreliable. The government also plays a role in
how and to what degree we as citizens make assumptions. In today’s society, we
hold much contempt for our system of government and the politicians who take
part. This breeds lack of trust in the system and those who run it. Due to this, we
find it even easier to conjure up our own stories of events with the belief that our
government is hiding the truth from its citizens. It is due to the influence of today’s
media and contempt for the government that make conspiracy theories such as the
Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 attack so controversial.
Literature Review
The term conspiracy theory offers up a mental picture of government agents,
wild plots, assassinations, and secretive missions. Once upon a time these ideas
would never have been accepted as the truth by any but those on the very fringes of
our society. Why is it then that today conspiracy theories abound? And why is it that
things thought to be totally unbelievable 50 years ago are now easily accepted by a
broad cross section of the general public? Those changes in our belief structure are
sparking great interest in sociologists, psychologists, and others, such as those in
law enforcement.
As an example, Ted Goertzel (1994) in his research on conspiracy theories
found that, according to a national survey by the New York Times in 1992, only ten
percent of the U.S. population believed that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in his
assassination of President John Kennedy. This compares to a Gallup Poll in 1966 in
which 36 percent of the population believed that Oswald acted alone. This increase
in belief of a conspiracy theory over the past almost 30 years has taken place in
spite of the additional evidence gathered over the years to support the original
supposition and arrest. Why? In order to answer that question, it is necessary to
better understand the nature of conspiracy theories.
Defining a conspiracy theory is not easy. Due to the lack of organization and
systematic processing evident in a conspiracy theory, they are not simply explained.
However, even though the explanation is not always clear, they can still be
described as independent or one-sided views or statements that are influenced by
scientific theory and political pathology (Blanusa 2011). Another comparative
definition of a conspiracy theory is a suggested alternative explanation of a
significant event in history according to a limited group of believers (Keeley 1999).
This definition uses the word theory because it offers a possible explanation to an
event but is not the only explanation. It also states that conspiracy theorists are not
omnipotent but significantly influence the spreading of the event. The small groups
of believers that are usually involved take action secretly in fear of ruining their
ideations.
These definitions also correlate with the accuracy of a conspiracy theory
simply because they are theories. Theories are defined as a set of facts in relation to
one another (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. 2008). People who come up with the
conspiracies are theorists that tend to place emphasis on unaccounted for and
contradictory data, which is another way of saying errant data (Keeley 1999). The
facts of the theory may be related but are inaccurate. Conspiracy theorists do not
always investigate the truth before deciding what the truth really is. They tend to
change and twist the outcome of their data to fit their own preconceived notion.
Another way of putting it may be that nature is construed as a passive and
uninterested party with respect to human knowledge gathering activities; the
conspiracy theorist is working in a way that interferes with the true facts of the
investigation (Keeley 1999).
Although it is apparent that conspiracy theories are difficult to define it is
actually possible to categorize different types of conspiracy theories, for instance:
superconspiracy, event conspiracy, and systemic conspiracy theories.
Superconspiracy theories are multiple conspiracies that are linked together. A prime
example of this would be the attack on 9/11 and the numerous theories that are
associated with it. Many include the twin towers being brought down with
explosives (controlled demolition), the collapsing of building 7, the failure of
America's air defenses, and Osama bin Laden's denial of involvement. Also, there is
the notion that there was never a proper investigation to ascertain the events of
9/11. It has been widely assumed that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists
were responsible (Everett 2010). Because 9/11 is one the most horrific experiences
that has ever occurred in the history of the United States, there are many aspects of
it ripe for misinterpretation and theorizing, but all the theories associated with 9/11
are more or less linked.
Another type is an event conspiracy theory, which is one or more events that
are unconnected and have a limited objective. A well-known example of an event
conspiracy is the assassination of President Kennedy. It is commonly believed that
the death of President Kennedy was covered up and several agents, as well as
agencies, were involved; Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged shooter, did not act alone
in the assassination. After the event, many books and articles were published that
linked the assassination to the FBI, CIA, the Mafia, Fidel Castro, and other
individuals and organizations (McHoskey 1995). This particular event caused much
controversy because the killing of a U.S. President is almost unheard of and caused a
fair amount of psychological angst among the American public. Just like 9/11, it was
a significant event in U.S. history and many aspects of the incident were attractive
targets for conspiracy theorists.
The last known type of conspiracy is a systemic conspiracy theory. This
particular theory refers to a more expansive region of belief. It focuses more on the
control of a country or ruling system. An appropriate reference to a systemic theory
would be the disbelief in the occurrence of the Holocaust. It has become evident that
some people believe that Hitler was not a dictator and the attack on the Jewish
people never took place; Jews were not tortured, there were no concentration
camps, the Gestapo, German police, did not exist, and the war never actually
happened. Even though there is a substantial amount of proof that the Holocaust did
in fact occur, some prefer to put their faith in a conspiracy theory.
It is not obvious when the first conspiracy theory was conceived; however, it
is known that they date back at least to the days of the American Revolution. One
author, Timothy Tackett (2000), describes a potential conspiracy theory that
affected the French Revolution and eventually all other revolutions worldwide,
including the American Revolution. Beginning on May 23, 1792, Jacques-Pierre
Brissot and Armand Gensonne gave a speech at the National Assembly. They spoke
about a plan to bring down the Assembly and the entire revolution. The operation
was supposedly pieced together by the Australian minister and accompanied by an
Australian Committee. The committee was part of the king's court and took part in
the majority of the upsets within the new French regime. There was not much
evidence to believe this plan would be successful, but due to the secrecy of the plan,
it was considered a conspiracy. It was never even proven that a group such as the
Australian Committee existed. But because of the threat to the revolution and the
Assembly, the concern spread causing fear in all other revolutions. Its effect on the
American Revolution led colonists to believe that members of the British
government were conspiring to restrict their attempt at freedom (Tackett 2000).
This also affected the Russian and Chinese Revolutions; they too believed that
conspiracy existed within their revolutions.
Due to the fear that developed during the American Revolution regarding the
threat to their freedom, the Revolution itself became a psychological event.
Colonists became fearful and paranoid that conspiracy was rampant within their
revolution. One man, Richard Hofstadter, took this paranoid attitude and called it
the paranoid style and related it to the Bavarian Illuminati scare of the 1790s. He
used the term paranoid style as a way of seeing the world and expressing oneself
(Wood 1982). He believed this applied to the American Revolution because of the
colonists' feelings of tension and anxiety. Because of the original situation during
the French Revolution, belief in political conspiracies became more common within
revolutions. These beliefs were altering the nature of societal and political views.
This change in political views throughout the years has most probably contributed
to the reasons why today the government and politics are readily believed to be
involved in conspiratorial plots. One event in particular that significantly altered the
view of Americans was the Kennedy assassination.
As previously mentioned, the issue of the Kennedy assassination revolved
around the idea of Lee Harvey Oswald being solely responsible for the death of
President John F. Kennedy. However, the conspiratorial aspect of the assassination
comes from the belief that the United States government was somehow involved. A
Gallup poll conducted in 1993 showed that 75 percent of Americans believed there
was a conspiracy behind the death of JFK (McHoskey 1995).
In examining the different types of theories and a few examples, it becomes
more apparent why people may believe in conspiracy theories. Each example given
was somehow a psychological shock or other psychological wound to those
involved. So how does this affect the thought process of a person who believes in
conspiracy theories? Psychologists and other researchers offer several theories of
their own. Most of these theories propose one or more of the following as possible
reasons for people’s interest and belief in conspiracy theories:
Betrayal and trust issues that lead to paranoia
Coping mechanism for victims of psychological shock
Lack of factual information
Influence of the information age and media exposure to sensationalism
It is certainly possible that since the people rely so heavily on the American
governmental system, psychological events such as those described earlier have the
potential to morph into betrayal, and paranoia. American government officials have
given the American people good reason over the years to question their integrity,
making it much easier to believe that they are capable of more than avoiding taxes
and misuse of campaign funds.
One example of possible government betrayal involves Osama bin Laden and
the attack on September 11, 2001. Many people have trouble accepting that the
attack on 9/11 was engineered by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda due to amount of
evidence against the government's claim. Because of this evidence, people have
begun to question the government's involvement in the attack on 9/11. Matt Everett
(2010), claims there are eight areas of evidence that contradict the true story of
9/11. The aspects of his evidence include the twin towers being brought down with
explosives with the use of controlled demolition, the collapsing of building 7, the
failure of America's air defenses, and Osama bin Laden's denial of involvement. As
society becomes more and more exposed to evidential support of a claim, they begin
to question what is real, whether that evidence is factual or not. And when faced
with the known corruption inherent in our government, it becomes a short step to
believing that evidence.
Events such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 place a lot of stress on
society and normally contribute to a negative psychological effect. These effects may
include paranoia, high anxiety, tension, and the lack of trust in people. However, it is
interesting that those same emotions may influence people positively. Some find
interpretations within conspiracy theories fulfilling psychological function, which
allows people to cope with different situations. It also may give them a sense of
meaning and self-control (Newheiser, Farias, and Tausch 2011). When a situation is
difficult to make sense of and a possible explanation is available, however
implausible, it becomes a type of coping mechanism. Even though psychological
change can alter a person's thought process, trust is a significant factor when
looking at conspiracy theories. People do not normally have the resources to access
trusted information. They have to rely on what other people say or think to be able
to make up their own mind about what they want to believe. Crippled epistemology
refers to the fact that people know very little and what they actually grasp is
incorrect or inaccurate (Sustein and Vermeule 2009). If people cannot determine
what is true, they base a judgment on what they recognize, whether something is
accurate or not.
However, because people rely so heavily on others for information, which
can potentially fuel a belief in conspiracy theories, another question arises as to why
those people continue to believe in conspiracy theories, especially if there is no
evidence to prove the theory is true. One author, Matt Goertzal (1994), claims that
monological belief systems are an easy explanation for this. In a monological belief
system, each preexisting belief relates to the evidence of another or new belief. A
monological thinker is more likely to believe in latent conspiracy theories than the
average person. Because they do not use factual evidence to distinguish the truth of
theories, they tend to use the same explanation for every existing problem. This type
of belief can also be strongly correlated with Anomia which, again, is the lack of
trust in people. If there is lack of trust, then people are more prone to stick with a
belief they are already familiar and comfortable believing.
The question of trust appears to be central to the pattern with any
conspiracy theory. It is evident that since people have very little and inaccurate
knowledge about a topic, they tend to rely on information from other people.
However, the people in reference are never identified as a specific source; a friend,
family member, coworker, are never identified as an accurate source. This is where
the influence from the media comes in. The news, talk shows, movies, television
series, and video games are all sources that people pick up information from. This
can also include magazines, newspapers, periodicals, and books. The media
significantly impacts how a person thinks and what he or she believes in today's
society.
One interesting question is why the media receives so much attention for
scandals and conspiracy theories, especially when there is no real evidence to prove
they are true. For Farhi (2010), the change in the media throughout the years has
had a considerable impact on society. In the past, potential news media
professionals were trained to provide only factual information free from spin or
personal opinion; personal feelings were reserved for the opinion columns and
pages only. It appears that the press has taken more liberties in recent years and the
media takes advantage of the freedom of speech. Before there was internet and
news commentary, ignoring stories that were not appropriate for society was much
easier. Due to the ease of media dissemination, the information industry has become
big business and competition is very much seated in sensationalism. To disregard a
strange or sensationalized news story is akin to competitive suicide in today’s
market. Some internet news sites actually have categories for weird news.
Other reasons why certain information winds up in the media is just simply
because of misinformation. With the sheer volume of information pushed out to the
public, mistakes are commonly made. Too many debates and stories in the media go
uncorrected; this misleads society. Making sure the facts are right and accurate is
becoming more difficult because of the volume of information and also because the
media benefits financially from reporting the more colorful aspects of the story; it
sells. Fair-minded reports and impassionate arguments take a back seat (Farhi
2010).
A few examples of stories that made it into the media that got much attention
involved two of our American Presidents. One was a recent trip Obama took to India
and the controversy that resulted. The media reported that for each day he spent in
India, it cost roughly $200 million. Another part of that story was that he was
accompanied by 34 naval ships. The information to this story was only anonymously
sourced. Another example is the role George W. Bush allegedly played in the attack
on 9/11.He was blamed for possibly staging the attack to advance his war on terror.
This story could easily be seen as fuel for a conspiracy against the United States
former President.
Another consideration is how gullible the public has become. Even though
the media would rather inform the public of more colorful events than straight
factual stories, people choose to believe the information they are offered. It has
become increasingly difficult and time-consuming to ferret out the truth. Simply, it
is easier to accept what is readily available. However, the more inaccurate and
uncorrected information people are fed, the more their beliefs can be manipulated,
using fear and paranoia as tools. Technology has also played a part. The motion
picture and video game industries’ use of new video technology to tell a believable
story makes it much more difficult to distinguish fantasy from fiction. Well-made
movies such as Shooter and the Manchurian Candidate are easy to believe and after
watching them along with other video games and movies often enough, the truth
becomes harder to recognize.
As discussed earlier, government mistrust dates back at least to the French
and American Revolutions. Some of the first conspiracy theories began with the
government and continue to have a lasting effect on society today. However, even
though the United States government is blamed consistently for being corrupt and
keeping information hidden from the public, they are still listened to intently
because of the power they wield. If the American government has so much
influence, why do they not attempt to control these conspiratorial situations? Two
authors, Cass R. Sustein and Adrian Vermeule (2009), offer suggestions that the
government might follow or administer to ensure that conspiracy theories are no
longer tolerated. A few examples are to impose a tax on anyone who spreads any
type of conspiracy theory; another may be for the government to hire a person who
is able to counter speak against the conspiracy theorists. Even though the
government may be capable of influencing society, it does not mean that the way
people think will change. There will always be people who blame the government
for the issues that America faces and the government will always keep secrets from
American citizens as a means to protect them.
Conspiracy theories are fictional explanations of important events that have
influenced the lives of people all over the world, most of them dealing with some
aspect of government. This research asks why so many people believe in conspiracy
theories when in truth, there is little reason to. As the research indicates, there are a
number of reasons that people may feel more comfortable with a conspiracy theory
than the facts. However, there is one recurring reason, lack of trust, leading to
perceived betrayal and paranoia. Throughout the research, lack of trust has been
central to these theories. Lack of trust and resulting paranoia is the basis for the
conspiracy theories present in the French and American Revolutions. This may be
where the skepticism with our government began, although some of the officials in
our modern-day government have certainly added to our suspicions. Other
psychologically-charged events such as the Kennedy assassination and President
George W. Bush's supposed involvement in the attack on 9/11 give us clues to
several other reasons for the popularity of the conspiracy theory phenomenon.
When something like the death of a president occurs, it is often followed by a
real case of psychological shock. People are at a loss to explain such a thing and
looking for an explanation becomes a coping mechanism. Whether that explanation
is based in fact or fiction, humans have a need to be able to make sense of a
situation. The problem lies in that individual’s ability to access the facts. When
events such as assassinations occur, the general public is rarely given the sensitive
factual information gathered by law enforcement until much later. The information
gap is gladly filled by conjecture spinning its way into a conspiracy theory. Media,
also many times without access to secured information, is happy to report those
stories that sell papers and conspiracy theories are prime sources. And the final nail
in the proverbial coffin may be that the conspiracy theory doesn’t sound too far-
fetched because something very similar to it was on television last night.
There are multiple reasons why conspiracy theories exist. It is also true that
not all are wrong, which makes them even more believable. However, as long as
people choose to believe in the possibility, conspiracy theories will not go away
anytime soon. We live in a world of too many unanswered questions; as long as
skepticism and paranoia exist, conspiracies will always be a part of society.
Data
I conducted a convenience sample of university students from The University
of Findlay, which is a private university, as well as attendees of the event, “The
Kennedy Assassination: An Evidentiary View.” The event was held on the campus of
The University of Findlay and the speaker, Peter Piraino, discussed the Kennedy
assassination and the conspiracy theories that were involved. My survey consisted
of 25 questions, including a question that asked participants if they believed Lee
Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Administered in the spring of 2013, I was able to obtain a total of 130 responses. Of
those participants who began taking the survey, only five failed to complete it. The
distribution was as follows: The University of Findlay students compromised 42.3%
of the sample and the attendees of the event, “The Kennedy Assassination: An
Evidentiary View” comprised 57.7% of the sample.
Variables
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable was whether or not respondents believed Lee
Harvey Oswald acted as the lone gunman during the Kennedy assassination. In the
survey, respondents were asked the following question: “Do you believe Lee Harvey
Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy?” Respondents were
provided three possible responses: yes, no, or don’t know. In Chart 1, I provided an
overview of how all respondents answered the question.
Two points are noteworthy. The first is that the people who were influenced
by the Kennedy speaker had a 78.7% (59 individuals out of 75) belief rate that Lee
Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. However, out
of the people who did not attend the event, only 7.3% believed that Oswald acted
alone. This indicated that the people who attended the Kennedy event were
educated and influenced by the information provided at the event. The people who
did not attend did not have the same access to factual information and their
responses significantly differed from those who did attend. The second point of note
is the number of people who believed that Oswald did not act alone. Of the number
of people who attended the event, only 6.7% of them did not believe Oswald acted
alone. On the contrary, of the people who did not attend, 67.3% believed that
Oswald did not act alone. The effects of the event showed that accurate information
from a perceived legitimate source may change the opinion of someone believing in
conspiracy theories.
Independent Variables
For my independent variables, I included the standard demographic
variables of age, sex, race, annual income and also whether they attended the
Kennedy assassination event. The remaining independent variables revolved
around the following concepts: the Kennedy assassination event, conspiracy
theories and trust in government. I included one measure of the Kennedy
assassination by asking the participants whether they attended the event, “The
Kennedy Assassination: An Evidentiary View”. For this question, the respondent had
the option of yes or no. As another measure of believing in conspiracy theories, I
asked the participants whether they believed that the U.S. government was involved
in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Participants were given the
following choices: very likely, likely, neutral, unlikely or very unlikely.
My final two variables involved trust in the government. I asked participants
whether they believed the U.S. government is mostly transparent with the American
people about its activities, as well as how likely it is that the American government
conspires against the American people to keep them unaware of the truth. For the
first question, regarding the American people and the government hiding their
activities, the respondents were given the following options: strongly agree, agree,
neutral, disagree or strongly disagree. In the second question, whether the
participants believe the government conspires against the people, the respondents
were given the following options: very likely, likely, neutral, unlikely or very
unlikely. With the government-based questions, I was able to gauge the level of trust
those believing in conspiracy theories may have toward their own government.
Demographics of Dataset
In my first demographic related chart (Chart 5; N=130) 43.1% of the
respondents are male and 56.9% are female. The annual income (Chart 6; N=130)
varies from 0 to 9,999 to 100,000 or more. 6.2% earned 0 to 9,999 per year, 1.5%
earned 10,000 to 19,999, 3.8% earned 20,000 to 29,999, 30,000 to 39,999, and
40,000 t0 49,999, 14.6% earned 50,000 t0 59,999, 10.8% earned 60,000 to 69,999,
5.4 % earned 70,000 to 79,999, 6.2% earned 80,000 to 89,999, 5.4% earned 90,000
to 99,999, and 27.7% earned 100,000 or more per year. With respect to race (Chart
7; N=130), 93.8% of respondents were white, 5.4% were non-white, and 0.8% did
not respond to the question. The percentage of participants who attended the
Kennedy event (Chart 8; N=130) was 57.7% and those participants who did not was
42.3%. The average age (Table 1; N=130) is 27.6, with the youngest participant
being 17 and the oldest being 74. Given that I distributed my survey at a university,
it is unsurprising that the majority of my sample is under age 25.
Hypotheses
H1: Belief in conspiracy theories is alive and well in America today.
H2: Respondents with access to accurate information from a perceived legitimate
source may change the opinion of someone believing in a conspiracy theory.
H3: Those respondents who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to
believe in others; this may fill a psychological need for them.
Methodology
To determine which variables were more likely to have an effect on the
perception of conspiracy theories, I used bivariate statistics (crosstabs). Because I
used only one dependent variable, whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, with
0=respondent not believing Oswald acted alone, 1=Oswald did act alone, and
3=don’t know if Oswald acted alone, and numerous independent variables, a
bivariate analysis was appropriate. My independent variables were how many
participants attended the event, “The Kennedy Assassination: An Evidentiary View,”
whether participants believed that the U.S. government was involved in the Sandy
Hook Elementary School shootings, how likely it is that the American government
conspires against the American people, and whether respondents believed the U.S.
government keeps its activities from the American people.
In Charts 1 through 4, I gave an overview of each of the independent
variables and the distribution of respondents within those variables. In the first
chart, I provided the percentages of the variables as attendees and non-attendees
for the Kennedy event; for the second chart, I provided the percentages by various
categories relating to the Sandy Hook shootings; the third and fourth chart also
provided the percentages by various categories relating to government questions.
These charts expressed percentages with a cross between the dependent variable of
who believed Lee Harvey Oswald did or did not act alone.
Results and Discussion
The results of each of my crosstabs were significant and have interesting
implications. The percentage of people who did not attend the Kennedy event and
tend to believe in conspiracy theories virtually mirrored the results of those who did
attend and do not believe; this is shown in Chart 1(p < .01). The percentage of non-
attendees who did not believe Oswald acted alone was 67.3%, while the percentage
of attendees who believed that Oswald acted alone was 78.7%. The visual results on
the chart look parallel to one another. Also, the percentage of people who believed
the government was likely involved with the Sandy Hook shootings and believed
Oswald did not act alone was above 50%, while those who believed Oswald acted
alone thought this was very unlikely at 66.1%. This was demonstrated in Chart 2 (p
< .001). In addition, 100% of those who believed it is that it is very unlikely that the
government would conspire against the American people also believed that Oswald
acted alone. This significance was confirmed in Chart 3 (p < .001). Lastly, the
percentage of people who did not believe Oswald acted alone strongly agreed 100%
that the government keeps its activities from Americans. This was demonstrated in
Chart 4 (p < .01). The outcome was interesting because 73.3% of those who did not
believe Oswald acted alone also strongly disagreed that the government kept its
activities from Americans.
Conclusion
This study is based upon an earlier literature review inquiring into the
phenomenon of conspiracy theory. There are a number of things that come into
play when studying the genesis of conspiracy theories. Some of these are the effects
of popular media, unsavory politics and the psychology of the individuals who
partake in this peculiarity. However, this study focuses primarily on lack of or
access to accurate information as an element in conspiracy theories. In an age when
information is easily accessible, it is curious that conspiracy theories continue to
exist. My study revealed three insights into the subject.
The first of these is that conspiracy theories continue to exist among
the modern-day American population in spite of easy access to facts. My survey of
130 individuals showed that a significant number of them still believe in the
possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in the assassination of John F.
Kennedy and that the U.S. government may have been involved in the recent Sandy
Hook Elementary School killings. They also believe that the American government
may be hiding information from its citizens. This agrees with Ted Goetzel’s findings.
These results may be somewhat suspect in that all of the survey responses came
from mid-western residents or college students rather than from a mixture of
residents from coastal and non-contiguous states. However, ages of respondents
ranged from 17 to 74 years of age, providing an adequate range.
The second of these insights is that easily accessible factual information from
a perceived legitimate source may have the power to sway opinion. This study was
done after an open presentation at The University of Findlay campus on the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy, both the facts and fallacies in the
associated investigation. The presentation was made by former Secret Service
Agent and current Tiffin University Professor Peter Piraino. Survey results showed
that a much higher percentage of those individuals who attended the presentation
believed that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and that there were no others present
on the grassy knoll. Inversely, there was a significantly larger percentage of those
who did not attend the presentation that believed the opposite. Unfortunately, I was
unable to poll attendees before the presentation to determine how many of the
attendees may have changed their opinion after hearing Piraino’s report.
Thirdly, it appears that those who believe in one conspiracy theory are much
more prone to believe in others, which may be rooted in their psychological
makeup. As stated in my earlier literature review, some find interpretations within
conspiracy theories fulfilling psychological function, which allows people to cope
with different situations. It also may give them a sense of meaning and self-control
(Newheiser, Farias, and Tausch 2011). A pattern seemed to emerge in the survey
results, showing that those who believed that Oswald did not act alone were much
more disposed to believe in other conspiracy theories, such as government
involvement in the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings.
In conclusion, although the sample taken was small in comparison to other,
more comprehensive studies, the results were uniformly significant in the areas
polled. I believe that my results, along with those of others like Ted Goertzel, can be
considered accurate, especially in that conspiracy theories are alive and well in
America today. I also believe that there is strong evidence that access to reliable
and well-respected information may change a conspiracy theorist’s opinion, unless
he or she has some psychological need to hold to those beliefs.
Appendix: Relevant Questions from the Survey
Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy?
Yes No Don’t’ Know
The U.S. government is mostly transparent with the American people about its activities.
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyAgree Disagree
How likely do you believe it is that the U.S. government was involved in The Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings?
Very Likely Neutral Unlikely VeryLikely Unlikely
How likely do you believe it is that the American government conspires against the American People to keep them unaware of the truth?
Very Likely Neutral Unlikely VeryLikely Unlikely
Did you attend the “The Kennedy Assassination: An Evidentiary View” event on March 26?
Yes No Don’t Know
References
Blanusa, N. (2011). Depathologized conspiracy theories and cynical reason:
Discursive positions and phantasmatic structures. Politicka Misao: Croatian
Political Science Review , 48, 94-107.
Everett, M. (2010). 9/11: The greatest lie ever told. Journal of Psychohistory , 38,
133-167.
Farhi, P. (2010). From the fringe to the mainstream. American Journalism Review, 32,
32-37.
Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 15, 731-742.
Keely, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96, 109-126.
McHoskey, J. W. (1995). Case closed? On the John F. Kennedy assassination: Biased
assimilation of evidence and attitude polarization. Basic & Applied Social
Psychology, 17, 395-409.
Newheiser, A. K. M. (2011). The functional nature of conspiracy beliefs: Examining
the underpinnings of belief in the Da Vinci code conspiracy. Personality &
Individual Differences, 51, 1007-1011.
Sustein, C. R. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political
Philosophy, 17, 202-227.
Tackett, T. (2000). Conspiracy obsession in a time of revolution: French elites and
the origins of the terror, 1789-1792. American Historical Review, 105, 691-
713.
Wood, G. S. (1982). Conspiracy and the paranoid style: Causality and deceit in the
eighteenth century. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 39, 401-
441.
% who do not be-lieve
% who do believe Don't Know0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Chart 1: Percentage of Event Attendees that Believe Oswald Acted Alone; N=130
Chi square=71.369; P<.001
3/26 Non-attendees3/26 Attendees
Very Likely
Likely
Neutral
Unlikely
Very Unlikely
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Chart 2: Resondents Who Believe that the U.S. Government Was Involved in the Sandy Hook Shootings by Those
Who Believe that Oswald Acted Alone; N=130 Chi square= 25.925; P<.001
Believe Oswald acted aloneDo not believe Oswald acted aloneDon't know
Very Likely
Likely
Neutral
Unlikely
Very Unlikely
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Chart 3: Repondents Who Believe the U.S. Government Conspires Against the American People by Those Who believe Oswald Acted Alone; N=130;
Chi square=49.210; P<.001
Believe Oswald acted alone
Do not believe Oswald acted alone
Don't know
Strongly Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Chart 4: Respondents Who Think the U.S. Government Keeps its Activities from Americans by Those Who Believe Oswald Acted Alone; N=130; Chi
square=21.984; P<.01
Do not believe Oswald acted aloneBelieve Oswald acted aloneDon’t know
43.10%
56.90%
Chart 5: Percentage of Respondents by GenderN=130
Male Female
0 to 9,999
10,000 to
19,999
20,000 to
29,999
30,000 to
39,999
40,000 to
49,999
50,000 to
59,999
60,000 to
69,999
70,000 to
79,999
80,000 to
89,999
90,000 to
99,999
100,000 or more
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% Chart 6: Respondent's Annual IncomeN=130
Percentage
5.40%
93.80%
0.80%
Chart 7: Race of RespondentsN=130
Non-WhiteWhiteMissing
42.30%
57.70%
Chart 8: The Number of Respondents that attended the March 26 Event on Kennedy Assassination and Con-
spiracy TheoriesN=130
Non-AttendeeAttendee
