Clicca qui per scaricare

Credulity and the cognitive market: scientific distrust and conspiracy theories
Autori/Curatori: Gérald Bronner, Laurent Cordonier 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2018 Fascicolo: 3 What is New in Fake News? Public Opinion and Second-Order Observation in a Hyperconnected Society. Alberto Cevolini and Gérald Bronner (edited by) Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  16 P. 9-24 Dimensione file:  220 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SP2018-003002
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 

By (potentially) providing free access to information for all, the Internet has been viewed by some to allow the development of knowledge societies. However, we argue in this paper that the Internet actually facilitates the dissemination and acceptance of spurious belief. In particular, operating as a deregulated cognitive market, the Internet amplifies web users’ confirmation bias, which in turn could induce them to endorse pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs. We also show that this kind of belief is overrepresented and especially visible on the web. Moreover, the Internet facilitates a rapid accumulation of conspiracy arguments against "official" explanations of historical events. Such accumulations of heterogeneous arguments often do not support coherent "alternative theories", but instil doubt about the "official" ones. The supply structure on the cognitive market is important to understand the spread of spurious beliefs, yet this point is often overlooked in the literature.

Keywords: Internet; Cognitive Market; Knowledge Society; Pseudoscientific Beliefs; Conspiracy Theories.

  1. Autret, M. 2002. La brouillotique nous gagne. Ecrire et éditer, 39.
  2. Bacon, F. 1986. Novum Organum. Paris: PUF.
  3. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., and Adamic, L. A. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), pp. 1130-1132.
  4. Bauerlein, M. 2008. The Dumbest Generation. London: Tarcher/Penguin.
  5. Bessi, A. et al. 2015. Trends of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation. PLosOne, pp. 1-16.
  6. Bindé, J. et al. 2005. Vers les sociétés du savoir. Rapport mondial de l’Unesco. Bruxelles/Collection Ouvrages de référence de l’UNESCO.
  7. Bouchayer, F. 1986. Les usagers des médecines alternatives: itinéraires thérapeutiques, culturels, existentiels. Revue française des affaires sociales. Numéro hors-série, avril, pp. 105-115.
  8. Boy, D., and Michelat, G. 1986. Croyances aux parasciences: dimensions sociales et culturelles. La Revue Française de Sociologie, pp. 175-204.
  9. Bronner, G. 2006. Une théorie de la naissance des rumeurs. Diogène, 213, pp. 107-132.
  10. — 2007. La résistance au darwinisme: croyances et raisonnements. La Revue Française de Sociologie, 48(3), pp. 587-607.
  11. — 2011. Ce qu’Internet fait à la diffusion des croyances, Revue européenne des sciences sociales. Revue européenne des sciences sociales. European Journal of Social Sciences, 49(1), pp. 35-60.
  12. — 2014. Cognition et formation académique. Les professeurs de science de la vie et de la terre face au “problème des elephants”. Revue européenne des sciences sociales. European Journal of Social Sciences, 52(1), pp. 139-161.
  13. — 2017. La democrazia dei creduloni. Roma: Aracne.
  14. Cardon, D. 2010. La démocratie Internet. Paris: Seuil.
  15. Carr, N. 2008. The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
  16. Cefaï, D. 2002. Qu’est-ce qu’une arène publique? Quelques pistes pour une approche pragmatiste. In D. Cefaï & I. Joseph (Eds.), L’Héritage du pragmatisme, pp. 51-82. La Tour d’Aigues: Editions de l’Aube.
  17. Roussiau, N., and Bonardi, C. 2001. Les représentations sociales. Hayen: Mardaga.
  18. Ruby, C.L. 2002. Are Terrorists Mentally Deranged? Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, pp. 15-26.
  19. Sageman, M. 2004. Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  20. Shirky, C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin Press.
  21. Simon, H. 1959. Theories and Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science. American Economic Review, 49(3), pp. 253-283.
  22. — 1963. Economics and Psychology. In: Koch, ed., Psychology: A Study of Science, t. VI. New York: McGraw Hill.
  23. Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. 1989. La Pertinence – communication et cognition. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
  24. Stehr, N. 1994. Knowledge Societies: The Transformation of Labour, Property and Knowledge in Contemporary Society. London: Sage.
  25. Stupple, D. 1984. Mahatmas and Space Brothers: The Ideologies of Alleged Contact With Extraterrestrials. Journal of American Culture, 7, pp. 131-139.
  26. Tapscott, D. 2008. Grown Up Digital. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
  27. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., Aral, S. 2018. The Spread of True and False News Online. Science, 359(6380), pp. 1146-1151.
  28. Wason, P.C. 1966. Reasoning. In B.M. Foss, New Horizons in Psychology. London: Penguin.
  29. Watts, D.J. 2004. The “New” Science of Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, pp. 243-270.
  30. Watts, D.J., and Strogatz, S. 1998. Collective Dynamics of “Small-World” Networks. Nature, 393(6684), pp. 440-442.
  31. Cherkaoui, M. 2007. Good intentions – Max Weber and the Paradox of Unintended Consequences. Oxford: Bardwell Press.
  32. DiGrazia, J. 2017. The Social Determinants of Conspiratorial Ideation. Socius, 3, pp. 1-9.
  33. Donnat, O. 2008. Pratiques culturelles des Français à l’ère numérique. Paris: La Découverte/Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication.
  34. Drucker, P. 1969. The Age of Discontinuity. Guidelines to our Changing Society. New York: Harper & Row.
  35. Duval, M. 2002. Un ethnologue au Mandarom. Paris: PUF.
  36. Etienne, B. 2005. Les combattants suicidaires. Paris: L’aube.
  37. Fiske, S.T., and Taylor, S.E. 1984. Social Cognition. New York: Random House.
  38. Flichy, P. 2010. Le sacre de l’amateur. Paris: Seuil.
  39. Gaschke, S. 2009. Klick. Strategien gegen die digitale Verdummung. Freiburg: Herder.
  40. Gladwell, M. 2002. The Tipping Point. How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston/New York: Little, Brown and Company.
  41. Hendler, J., Hall, W., Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., and Weitzner, D. 2008. Web Science: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding the Web. Web Science, 51(7), pp. 60-69.
  42. Krueger, A. 2007. What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism. Priceton: Princeton University Press.
  43. Leadbeater, C., and Miller, P. 2004. The Pro-Am Revolution: How Enthusiasts are Changing our Economy and Society. London: Demos.
  44. Mansell, R., and When, U. 1998. Knowledge Societies: Information Technology for Sustainable Development. United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
  45. Olson, M. 1965. Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  46. Pantazi, M., Kissine, M., and Klein, O. 2018. The Power of the Truth Bias: False Information Affects Memory and Judgment Even in the Absence of Distraction. Social Cognition, 36(2), pp. 167-198.
  47. Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J.A., and Koehler, D.J. 2015. Everyday Consequences of Analytic Thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), pp. 425-432.
  48. Renard, J-B. 2010. Croyances fantastiques et rationalité. L’Année Sociologique, 60(1), pp. 115-135.
  49. Ross, L., and Leeper, R. 1980. The Perseverance of Beliefs: Empirical and Normative Considerations. In: R.A. Shweder and D.W. Fiske, eds., New Directions for Methodology of Behavioral Science: Faillible Judgement in Behavioral Research, pp. 79-93. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  50. Ross, L., Leeper, M. R., and Hubbard, M. 1975. Perseverance in Self-Perception and Social Perception: Biased Attributional Processes in the Debriefing Paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), pp. 880-892.

Gérald Bronner, Laurent Cordonier, in "SOCIOLOGIA E POLITICHE SOCIALI" 3/2018, pp. 9-24, DOI:10.3280/SP2018-003002


FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche