Conspiracy Beliefs and Monothematic Delusions: A Case for De-pathologizing

Monothematic delusions and beliefs in conspiracy theories share some important features: they both typically have bizarre contents and are resistant to counterevidence. Yet conspiracy beliefs are generally taken to be a normal range phenomenon, whilst monothematic delusions are considered to involve doxastic pathology. In this paper, we argue that this difference in conceptualization is not warranted, and that, if we're right, the correct response is to de-pathologize monothematic delusions. We identify three reasons which could justify taking monothematic delusions to be pathological beliefs whilst not treating conspiracy beliefs in such terms. First, we consider what have been identified as initial provoking conditions in monothematic delusions (anomalous experience) and conspiracy beliefs (epistemic mistrust). Second, we consider the role of cognitive biases or deficits in these phenomena. Third, we consider the different roles played by testimony and one's social environment in the formation and maintenance of monothematic delusions and conspiracy beliefs. We argue that there are no grounds from any of these quarters for the different approaches taken with respect to the question of doxastic pathology. Our primary conclusion then is that monothematic delusions and conspiracy beliefs should be treated the same in this respect. Our secondary conclusion is that the correct way to do so is to de-pathologize monothematic delusions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Erkenntnis
Published
2024-11-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-024-00881-w
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.53

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Conspiracy Beliefs and Monothematic Delusions: A Case for De-pathologizing

Ema Sullivan‐Bissett, Anna Ichino
4 citations
Erkenntnis
Misinformation and Its Impacts
4.53
article

Conspiracy Beliefs and Monothematic Delusions: A Case for De-pathologizing

Ema Sullivan‐Bissett, Anna Ichino
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Monothematic delusions and beliefs in conspiracy theories share some important features: they both typically have bizarre contents and are resistant to counterevidence. Yet conspiracy beliefs are generally taken to be a normal range phenomenon, whilst monothematic delusions are considered to involve doxastic pathology. In this paper, we argue that this difference in conceptualization is not warranted, and that, if we're right, the correct response is to de-pathologize monothematic delusions. We identify three reasons which could justify taking monothematic delusions to be pathological beliefs whilst not treating conspiracy beliefs in such terms. First, we consider what have been identified as initial provoking conditions in monothematic delusions (anomalous experience) and conspiracy beliefs (epistemic mistrust). Second, we consider the role of cognitive biases or deficits in these phenomena. Third, we consider the different roles played by testimony and one's social environment in the formation and maintenance of monothematic delusions and conspiracy beliefs. We argue that there are no grounds from any of these quarters for the different approaches taken with respect to the question of doxastic pathology. Our primary conclusion then is that monothematic delusions and conspiracy beliefs should be treated the same in this respect. Our secondary conclusion is that the correct way to do so is to de-pathologize monothematic delusions.

ErkenntnisVol. 91(1)
University of Milan (IT), University of Birmingham (GB)
Università degli Studi di Milano, Pitzer College, Dipartimenti di Eccellenza, British Academy, Arts and Humanities Research Council
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
4.53
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Conspiracy Beliefs and Monothematic Delusions: A Case for De-pathologizing — Ema Sullivan‐Bissett, Anna Ichino · Erkenntnis (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS